House of Commons Hansard #15 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was treaty.

Topics

The SenateOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I could say that this is a purely hypothetical question, but in an effort to be helpful to my hon. friend I remind him that our constitution says that for changes to be made to the Senate there have to be favourable resolutions passed in the provincial legislatures before the matter comes to this parliament.

I would be interested in knowing what the hon. member says about what the Alberta government is going to do or the government of any province to meet this constitutional requirement.

Genetically Modified FoodsOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, in recent months, regulations governing the labelling of genetically modified foods have been passed by all European Union countries and will soon be passed by Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.

Does the minister realize that, by refusing to label and regulate genetically modified foods, a large number of European and Asian countries to which Canada exports may close their doors to our farmers and their products? Does he realize this?

Genetically Modified FoodsOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Prince Edward—Hastings Ontario

Liberal

Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago the Standards Council of Canada, the Canadian Grocery Distributors Institute, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the industry and the federal government all agreed to set a criteria that would be credible, meaningful and enforceable for voluntary labelling.

Before we have any kind of labelling to any greater extent than we have at the present time we must ensure that everyone is involved in that process so that if the government or industry goes to that approach we can ensure that in the end it is credible, meaningful and enforceable.

HomelessnessOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, we have to wonder what kind of social conscience and sense of morality the government has when it can pander to the Prime Minister's office staff at public expense, at luxury resorts, vacation planning for their boss, when so many Canadians are left out in the cold, freezing and without hope.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance this, if he cares to listen. What kind of cruel joke is this? Why has the government sunk so low that it can have soft, warm beds for the Prime Minister's office and hard, cold concrete for homeless Canadians? How do you justify that?

HomelessnessOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

The Speaker

I would remind hon. members that all questions should be put through the Chair.

HomelessnessOral Question Period

November 1st, 1999 / 2:55 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the government is doing something tangible to deal with this serious problem. Aside from the more than $1 billion that we have put into social housing, we have allotted an additional $250 million for programs like RRAP to help provide shelter for homeless people. In addition to that we are working on further programs with the provinces.

Instead of my hon. friend's unjustified premise, she should look at the actual facts. We are doing something now to help solve this serious problem and we will continue to work on further solutions.

FisheriesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, since the Marshall decision of September 17 the only agreement reached has been negotiated without government help. Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have a plan to implement when this crisis returns next spring?

FisheriesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Vancouver South—Burnaby B.C.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, unlike the opposition party we do have a plan. We have a federal representative.

If the hon. member would look at what is happening in Atlantic Canada, it is working. We have people talking. We are talking about community based solutions.

I am happy to announce today that the two bands which were allowed to fish up to October 31 have agreed to pull all of their traps and fully abide by a regulated fishery.

IlliteracyOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for literacy. Statistics Canada's most recent numbers indicate that illiteracy continues to be a major problem for many Canadians.

What is the minister doing to support the efforts of the literacy movement in fighting the illiteracy problem across the nation?

IlliteracyOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Brant Ontario

Liberal

Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, while the results of the international adult literacy survey demonstrate that most graduates of the Canadian education system have good to excellent literacy skills, we know that is not necessarily the case for all Canadians. That is why in 1997 we increased the budget for literacy by 30% to almost $30 million a year.

I want to assure the hon. member that we will continue to work very closely with our partners to ensure that all Canadians have the literacy skills they need to participate in the economy of the 21st century.

The SenateOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said there has to be some big constitutional change for an elected Senate. That is not correct.

There is nothing in the constitution that prevents the Prime Minister from appointing a duly elected senator. Alberta wants to elect its senators. It is about to conduct a referendum on that issue; a clear question, a clear majority.

Will this government respect its wish, yes or no?

The SenateOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, until the constitution is changed we will continue to follow and respect the constitution. I am sure the hon. member would want us to do no less.

Reproductive TechnologiesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, for amounts as high as $150,000, it is possible to obtain ova corresponding to certain very specific criteria, such as the appearance of donors, on the Internet in the United States.

Since the government has still not proposed any framework for the new reproductive technologies, such a situation could arise here. When, therefore, does the government intend to act?

Reproductive TechnologiesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, during the last session, we introduced Bill C-47, and we still intend to take action. We are in the process of preparing a bill to address all these issues.

ImmigrationOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, the immigration targets announced by the government today are just enough to break even population-wise. That means that 50 years from now we will still be a country of 31 million people, roughly the same size as Minneapolis.

The famous Liberal red book said that targets would be set at 1% of population. However, today's announcement is barely even half of that.

Why did the minister not live up to the red book promise today when she had the opportunity? Why are she and the government afraid to appear to be pro-immigration and pro-growth?

ImmigrationOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Thornhill Ontario

Liberal

Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and the member opposite that today I announced that our commitment of 1%, which was in the 1993 red book, remains a long term goal for the government. I am committed to discussing that goal, not only with provincial and territorial governments but with NGOs and Canadians because we recognize the importance of immigration to the country.

The levels that I announced today are similar to the levels of last year. I am hoping that by working with the department to streamline processes, we will be able to achieve the targets that were announced today.

TaxesOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Harvey Progressive Conservative Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals won the 1993 election by promising to scrap the GST. The rest is history.

I would like to know whether they will be as enthusiastic about lowering taxes as they were about scrapping the GST.

TaxesOral Question Period

3 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, since we came to power, we have shown very clearly our intention to lower taxes.

That is why, in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 budgets, we lowered taxes by more than $16.5 billion. This is the largest tax reduction in a decade, and we certainly intend to continue along the same lines.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec East, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe I am personally involved, but not voluntarily, in a serious case of contempt of parliament, a case indeed so serious that it could weaken the democratic spirit of the House in our role as elected members.

This case of contempt involves both the Senate and the House of Commons and can be explained quickly by considering three issues: first, the implication of the Senate; second, the aggression on the House of Commons; and third, the undermining of my right to freedom of speech as an elected member.

Mr. Speaker, I did not delay in raising this point of order, on the contrary. Acting on information received in recent days, along with your letter of October 29, received just hours ago, I am anxious to address the matter today.

Mr. Speaker, as you indicate yourself on page 11,121 of Hansard dated December 9, 1998, “I cannot presume of the content of a question of privilege before having heard it”. For this reason, I feel that you will allow me the time to explain this important question of privilege. I am convinced that once you have heard the facts in this case, you will conclude with me that it is indeed a very serious contempt of parliament, the consequences of which could directly affect the integrity of the House and the freedom of speech of all members. I hope you will take the time to justify your decision.

In Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by Joseph Maingot, chapter 12, it states on page 229:

—any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its function, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer in the discharge of his “parliamentary duty”, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.

I did indeed say “has a tendency to produce such results” and “even though there is no precedent for the offence”. The reason for this is that, of course, contempt cannot be limited. Its definition remains open-ended because no one is in a position to predict all possible cases of contempt of parliament.

According to all references consulted, contempt of parliament is essentially an attack on the authority and dignity of the House of Commons.

What I am presenting today is a case of contempt of parliament or a case with a tendency to produce such a result, one that is new, possibly unique, although I believe there is a precedent, a similar case raised in this House on October 14 by the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley—

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. Colleagues, if you have meetings I would like you to take them outside of the House. I would like to hear this question of privilege as I think it affects all of us.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec East, QC

I was speaking therefore about a similar precedent, which was raised by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley in October and involved a federal agency, CSIS, and its direct and indirect activities in proceedings against her.

The Chair took this case under consideration, noting that it appeared at first glance to be a serious question of privilege and of contempt of parliament. The matter I put to you today may be compared with the earlier case, but appears to me more serious still, because it concerns not a former employee of the Senate, but a sitting senator whose actions involve the Senate directly in an attack on the authority and dignity of the House of Commons, or tends to produce such results.

The matter at issue arises from a civil suit brought against my by a senator who took offence at a bulk mailing of 16 pages on the Senate to my fellow citizens in April. The mailing of 48,000 copies, distributed by the House of Commons services, was intended solely to inform the public on the Senate. The document upset the senator to the point that she took action against me for defaming the Senate.

The strangest part of the matter is that the petition gives the impression that this is a simple suit by a senator against a member of parliament, which is not the case. Much more is involved. In fact, the suit involves the Senate directly, putting it in a position of hostility and aggression with respect to the House of Commons.

First, the senator speaks on behalf of the Senate. She defends the institution as if she had been given a very clear mandate to do so. She then makes provocative and disparaging remarks about the House of Commons and the elected members sitting there, something I consider entirely inappropriate and unacceptable.

This case arises from a civil suit brought against me by a senator. Although the appearances may lead you to believe that it is simply a lawsuit concerning an MP and a senator, it is much more. In fact, the lawsuit involves the Senate directly, placing it in a hostile position toward the House of Commons. The senator speaks in the name of the Senate, for the institution as a whole, as though she had a clear mandate to do so. In so doing, she makes a number of provocative and derogatory comments concerning the House of Commons and its elected members, which I consider to be totally inappropriate and unacceptable.

A personal libel suit must be limited to the factors that have a truly personal impact.

In Ms. Hervieux-Payette's suit, the personal is buried in a huge number of allegations that have nothing personally to do with the senator. Ninety per cent of the allegations do not involve her personally, but rather the Senate as a whole and its relations with the House of Commons.

For example, she feels that the comment made in my document to the effect that “the Senate is an archaic and undemocratic institution” is defamatory. She accuses me of making false and erroneous claims concerning the costs of that institution and the particular services enjoyed by senators. She feels that my statement to the effect that the Senate sits few hours and few days per year is defamatory. Finally, she considers that my comments are contemptuous when I state that the Senate is an institution that lacks transparency, or that senators can find themselves in conflict of interest situations since they sit on boards of directors that can sometimes bring them in excess of $400,000 per year.

All these allegations are not of a personal nature. She is speaking on behalf of the Senate. In fact, she is not only speaking on behalf of the Senate in her application, but also in her examination, which took place on August 19 and where she said “I am speaking on behalf of the institution” It could not be any clearer. I will table a copy in French and an English translation of that examination and of the application.

In speaking on behalf of the Senate as she is doing—and this is my first point—is the senator not involving the Senate as an institution in her lawsuit against me? Is the Senate not directly or indirectly involved in a lawsuit against a member of this House? Is the Senate not prosecuting a member of parliament through a senator?

At this time, I can assure you, based on the comments made by the senator during her examination that the Senate has played an active role in the preparation of that legal action. Is this not evidence that the Senate is behind the application made by Mrs. Hervieux-Payette?

What is important here is to recognize that in speaking for the Senate, the senator forces me to violate the spirit of parliament. In order to defend myself, in order to be assured of having a just and equitable trial, I am compelled to contest the immunity of senators and to convene a number of them by subpoena duces tecum. I have no other choice. To prove my innocence, I must fight the Senate, somewhat like David against Goliath. Obviously, it is an unfair and excessive burden, a task requiring resources that far exceed those available to a single, solitary member of parliament. Does that not in itself constitute an attack on my status and role as an elected MP?

As I have said, in order to defend myself, I will be forced to call senators, Senate staff, and even senior House officials by subpeona duces tecum for questioning about the Senate's budget, costs and operations.

I will even be forced to call senators by subpeona duces tecum to testify about their travel, telephone and office expenses, and even about their lobbying activities and possible conflicts of interest, given their role as directors of several large Canadian and foreign corporations.

The senator is thus speaking on behalf of the Senate, implicating the Senate directly, and several other senators. But she does not stop there. And this bring me to my second point.

In addition to implicating the Senate, the senator also attacks the House of Commons by drawing a series of provocative parallels between the House of Commons and the Senate. For instance, she compares respective costs and functions, leading us to believe that senators are less costly and therefore more efficient than we are as elected MPs. The remarks are made with the same spirit that pushed Senator Nolin to accuse the House of Commons of becoming a circus since we have introduced televised debates. If such provocative remarks are included in a senator's civil suit against an MP, does that not in itself constitute a serious case of contempt of the House of Commons and of its role as the voice of democracy in the country?

Therefore, not only am I forced to tackle the entire Senate alone in order to defend myself, but I must also defend the integrity of the House of Commons alone as well. Do I have a mandate from the House of Commons to speak in its name as the senator seems to have for the Senate?

Again, I will be forced to call a certain number of members, and even certain ministers, to testify in defence of the House. It would even be appropriate to have each political party send a delegate to defend its rights with respect to the matters raised.

As members can see, I am not implicated in a personal attack so much as I am a victim of an attack by the Senate against the House of Commons.

I find myself caught, as it were, between two different institutions, which are sometimes hostile towards one another, having to battle the first and defend the second, simultaneously and on my own, because I have so far received no assistance from the House of Commons, despite the magnitude of this affair, which I feel is completely immoral and unfair. I am in an impossible situation.

This brings me to my third and final point. This civil suit is well beyond my means as a member. When a senator, with the support of the Senate and/or the government in power, as is the case here, brings a suit against a member, the battle is an unequal one. A member of parliament, particularly an opposition member, does not have access to the resources a senator does who is appointed to the Senate for more than 20 years and who can have her legal costs met by a whole set of agreements with the Senate spread out over ten or fifteen years, to which can be added some attractive contracts from the government in power.

Because of the exaggerated nature of this case and its clear attempt to muzzle MPs that dare criticize the Senate openly, my rights to freedom of speech is being jeopardized, and so is the freedom of speech of most other elected members of this House.

Because of the exaggerated nature of this case and its clear attempt to muzzle MPs that dare criticize openly the Senate, my right to freedom of speech is being jeopardized, and so is the freedom of speech of most other elected members of the House. Let me explain.

As soon as this business began, when the senator sent me her formal notice, alleging that my 16-page document contained defamatory material, I contacted the House legal advisers who advised me to send out a mailing to all my constituents in Québec East making several minor corrections, in order to ward off any possibility of a lawsuit and to cool off any other senators. The House legal advisers wrote up the correction notice, and although I feel it is extremely generous in certain points, it was sent out as drafted by the House.

I co-operated fully, and to the letter, with the House legal advisers in order to avoid any lawsuit. The Senator did sue me, however. Moreover, the House legal counsels told me clearly that, if there were a lawsuit, the House would very likely agree to meet the cost of representation by counsel, since I had acted readily and in good faith, particularly when the alleged errors had been committed in the performance of my parliamentary duties, in a householder mailing. In other words, I had every reason to believe that the House of Commons would back me up if there were a court case.

Members can therefore imagine my amazement to learn that the House of Commons is refusing to meet the costs of representing me in this lawsuit. I am all the more surprised since the House of Commons generally meets the legal costs of MPs when the actions for which they are sued were committed in the performance of their duties. This is a justified practice because a member of parliament is a public figure subject to all manner of lawsuits, justified or unjustified. That is, moreover, why this is a common practice for provincial and municipal administrations as well.

In your letter of October 29, you give no reason for the refusal by the Board of Internal Economy. In an earlier letter, however, you had written that the board was “hesitant to intervene in a dispute between parliamentarians of both Houses”. If that explanation still holds, it strikes me as rather discriminatory, and seriously threatens my freedom of speech as a parliamentarian.

First, why would the House of Commons be so hesitant to intervene in a dispute between a member and a senator? Is the House of Commons not the House of the elected representatives? And is the House not obliged to defend elected representatives, before senators, who are not elected?

The Speaker of the House of Commons is first and foremost Speaker of the House of Commons, not of the Senate. Does he not have a moral obligation toward the elected members of the House before those of the non-elected Senate?

Every credible organization in the western world comes to the defence of its own members first before those of any other organization. It is a question of respect in the most primitive sense.

MPs in the House, therefore, cannot be placed on an equal footing with the senators over there. We are the elected members. We speak for taxpayers and must answer to them every four or five years. We carry the flame of democracy. Without us there is no democracy. Without us the voice of the people is silent.

Senators are not elected. They are appointed to age 75 and, accordingly, are not accountable to the public every five years. Their role is not essential to the democratic process. Our democracy does not depend on the senators. Our system could do without them, but not without MPs.

So, how can we equate an elected MP with a non elected senator? This is serious discrimination against me as an MP and where my freedom of speech is compromised, like that of all the other members of this House. Nothing is more serious, as Beauchesne writes in comment 75 in the 6th edition, and I quote:

The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of the member of parliament

To compromise members' right to speak is to compromise the very foundation of democracy and its exercise in this House.

Accordingly an excessive, exaggerated lawsuit such as this one is a forceful attempt to muzzle MPs who wish to criticize the Senate.

In refusing to cover the legal costs in my defence, the Board of Internal Economy not only assures the pre-eminence of senators over MPs but gives senators the freedom to sue MPs even for the most ludicrous reasons, knowing full well that henceforth they are vulnerable. I would remind the House that a lawsuit is not necessarily reasonable or justified because it comes from a senator. Their intentions can also be mischievous and malicious.

MPs will then be subject to forms of blackmail by senators who are non-elected and who represent particular or private interests. When governments elsewhere are reducing the advantages granted to those who are non-elected in Canada, non-elected senators are taking precedence over the House of Commons in making elected MPs toe the line. What a travesty of justice. What a travesty of democracy.

Regardless, the board may try to weaken me by refusing to cover my legal costs, contrary to custom. It may protect the interests of the Senate first and permit me to be sued to the limit of my human and financial capabilities. I will, however, never give up my right to speak. So long as I am an elected member of this House, I will continue to speak of the waste and the abuse in the Senate. Not only have I the right to do so, I have the duty. Dead or alive, as the old Panamanian adage says, but never on my knees.

I will never give up my freedom of speech. Never shall I cease to criticize the waste and abuse of the Senate. As long as I am an elected member I will continue to criticize it because it is not only my role but my responsibility toward taxpayers.

Too often elected members are criticized for not respecting the will of the people. Here is the golden opportunity to put into application the views of the vast majority of Canadians and Quebecers who are opposed to the Senate as it exists today and who want it either abolished or reformed.

For all these reasons, I would ask the Chair to exercise all its influence to reverse this decision by the Board of Internal Economy and give me the money I need to cover legal costs in this matter so that my defence and that of the House of Commons, currently under attack, may be properly assumed.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to something which I do not believe is a question of privilege. I think it was a plea made to the Board of Internal Economy but expressed in the House of Commons.

First, the speech of the hon. member was not concluded by a request for a referral to the proper parliamentary committee. In fact it concluded with what I said earlier. In other words, it was a plea that the Board of Internal Economy reverse a decision which he alleges the board has already taken. I will not get into whether the board has or has not taken such a decision because that could become a question of privilege if I did precisely that.

What Your Honour has before you is a dispute between two members of parliament: one a member of the House of Commons and one a member of the Senate, both being members of parliament under the constitution as we know it today. Should that constitution change someday to state something otherwise then it could be judged otherwise. Meanwhile, the fact remains that under our constitution parliament is the Sovereign, the House of Commons and the Senate in parliament assembled.

He alleges that the senator, when exercising this lawsuit against him, was speaking on behalf of the Senate. I submit that is ridiculous. That is about the same as our believing that when the hon. member who just spoke speaks in the House he speaks on behalf of all of us, let alone when he speaks outside the House.

On very few occasions would I ever admit that member speaks on behalf of me or my constituents, particularly when he speaks outside this place.

Second, the allegation is made in a civil suit and not in reference to what was said inside the House, or if it was at least the hon. member has not demonstrated that the civil suit pertains to something that was said in the House.

I believe that he referred on a number of occasions to a 16 page document which he circulated to several thousand constituents of his riding and was not about something that was said in the House.

Only one person is in the position to speak on behalf of this institution. I would submit, Sir, that is yourself. Only one person, similarly, can speak on behalf of the Senate. I would submit that is your counterpart, the hon. Speaker of the other place. Therefore to pretend that one member of the Senate is speaking for the institution is not factually correct.

In his speech, the hon. member also made very strong allegations regarding the government and, therefore, many members in this House. He said that the senator was taking legal action with the support, according to the hon. member's claim, of the government in office, which means some 30 members of this House.

He also said that the senator could get legal services and that her lawyers might then get contracts, lucrative ones as he put it, from MPs, more specifically from ministers.

I would ask that a very close look be taken at these allegations, since they are in fact accusations which are, in my opinion, much more serious than the ones the hon. member referred to in his arguments.

He talked about freedom of speech in this House. Indeed, members of parliament do enjoy freedom of speech here, and the House can of course take action against one of its members if he or she says something that is not true or not acceptable under the standards of our institution. However, this freedom of speech does not extend beyond the precincts of this House, and I go back to my original point, which is that the member is referring to something that took place outside the House.

I am not taking sides regarding what happened outside the House. It is none of my business. However, I do believe that we are all concerned by the allegations made in this House about parliamentarians who sit here.

He referred to non-elected senators having, as a result of all these allegations, precedence over elected MPs. The reference he made earlier in which he alleges that some members of the House, ministers, could give legal contracts to lawyers in exchange for defending a member of the other place is a very serious allegation. I would invite Your Honour to reread that portion of the statement very carefully to see whether anything warrants that kind of what I would call vicious attack against hon. members of the House.

I believe criticism of the Board of Internal Economy made in this way in the House is not acceptable. Members of all parties serve on the board and attempt, under the guidance and leadership of our Speaker, to do a good job on behalf of all of us in the management of this place. That is what I believe all of us do in good conscience. This kind of accusation is unwarranted, not specifically against me, but against all of us who sit on the Board of Internal Economy on behalf of this institution.

The institution itself is more important than any one of us and certainly does not warrant the kind of criticism I have just heard.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to make three points. It always worries me when each and every time in the House an individual stands on a question of privilege that the government immediately stands and makes a defence as though it is the government that is being charged with a question of privilege.

When individuals in the House stand on questions of privilege, it is not just the individual they are referring to but it is a question of privilege for all members of the House. The government should take note of that. Each and every time a question of privilege arises, the government House leader seems to take it upon himself as if it was some kind of personal question against the government.

The House leader of the government also indicated that this was an issue of two members. It is not. I understand this is an issue of a member of parliament and a member of the Senate.

Third, Mr. Speaker, if you are to consider this at all, I do believe you have to question whether the legal fees of the individual from the Senate are being paid by the Senate or in fact by the individual. This, to me, makes a differentiation between whether this is a Senate-House of Commons issue or a person who happens to work in the Senate.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak briefly about what has just happened and about the speech of the member for Québec East.

What needs to be understood is that this is the appeal of a member to the individual who has been designated the protector of all parliamentarians in the House, to you, Mr. Speaker. It is to you in this capacity that I am speaking as the House leader of this party, because I feel involved and affected by the suit that has been brought.

I wish to humbly submit for the Chair's consideration the following, The member for Québec East, in his householder, was essentially acting as a parliamentarian. He made a few errors which, on the advice of the House's legal counsel—your employees, Mr. Speaker, people whose expertise the House makes available to members in situations such as this—he hastened to put right to the extent possible and as rapidly as possible. As a result, in one suit in which he was involved, my colleague managed very easily, with respect to matters of a personal nature involving individuals, to reach agreement with one of the senators who had decided to bring a suit.

In the second case, as a result of this also, the very nature of the suit has to do not with the personal attacks that were made, but the institution. My colleague has no way of defending himself alone, given the magnitude of the facts at issue. In order to defend himself, he would be in the completely ridiculous situation of having to call senators and members in order to testify about their expenses, obligations and responsibilities. The very nature of the suit goes well beyond the mere responsibility of this member.

Now a ruling has been made. I know that what is decided by the Board of Internal Economy normally has the consensus of the parties. We always manage to work out something in the best interests of the House. An element of co-operation is also necessary.

In this case, however, my colleague finds himself, having committed an error as a parliamentarian, and having made corrections on the advice of the lawyers and the legal counsel of the House of Commons, having accepted everything it was humanly possible to accept, in a situation of a dual lawsuit.

In the one case, there are the personal elements, and in the other—for this is a much broader and more vindictive case—it affects the MP's very ability to write to his constituents in a householder leaflet that he does not feel the role of the other place is either very important or very essential. It goes as far as that. We know our colleague has excellent chances on legal grounds to win this suit and to be exonerated of all blame.

But here we have an MP who has to deal with a lawsuit launched by a senator who has considerable means and influence—nothing secret about that—being on the government side. This is a person who could easily take the whole thing a very long way. Our colleague for Québec East, a member of this House—and he could just as easily have been Reform, Liberal, Conservative or NDP—is left to fend for himself.

I know there is another means for obtaining justice. I know an appeal can be made to the procedure and house affairs committee, if I am not mistaken. But I am asking you, like my colleague before me, as the protector of the parliamentarians in this House, is it a wise thing to do, to let a matter such as this rest on a decision one made very summarily, I hasten to add by the Bureau of Internal Economy?

I am not going to question the arguments that have been brought up so far, but I do know perfectly well that the net result is likely to have an extremely serious impact in future for MPs who could find themselves in touchy situations for having expressed politically divergent opinions.

What has to be differentiated is what constitutes opposing political opinions and what constitutes personal attacks—and I know you are an expert in this, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, who is currently being sued seemingly for his political opinions with respect to remarks make regarding the other House, finds himself unable to defend himself or, in the end, limited to his own means.

Is it the intention of the Chair to have MPs' ability to argue determined by the size of their wallet? If I can afford $100,000 or $150,000 in lawyer's fees because my finances permit me, I could attack the Senate and the people with diverging political opinions.

However, an MP, like my colleague from Québec East earns his living with his parliamentary salary and cannot express opinions, because anyone could decide to sue him for expressing political opinions, even if it were acknowledged initially that some matters were exaggerated and that the correction was made as requested by the House of Commons.

I put it to you in all sincerity. We appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of parliamentarians. We want you to find a way to sit the parties involved down, including those of the Senate, if necessary, because that was one of the elements put forward by the Board of Internal Economy. The individuals must be sat down under your influence to reconsider the case of my colleague, who finds himself in this improbable situation. This situation will have an effect in time on all parliamentarians in this House and all those who sit there from now on. This is what I draw to your attention.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add fuel to the debate, but I do feel there are a couple of points I would like to make to contribute to what has been put forward on the point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, as a member and presiding officer of the Board of Internal Economy, you know that the issue and the facts of the case should not be tried in the House of Commons. We have now heard extensively about what ultimately could become points of contention in a civil trial that is before the courts or pending.

We have heard discussions about what parliamentary privilege may be attached to certain comments that were made in a householder that was sent out to a constituency. We can argue about the merits and the intent of that, but I find that you, Mr. Speaker, are being put in the unenviable position of being asked essentially to be a court of appeal before a court finding has been made on many of these important facts.

I also know that questions of privilege that are brought forward are often brought forward after certain circumstances have arisen. Much of the discussion that we have had before the House today already took place at the Board of Internal Economy. Mr. Speaker, you are being asked in essence not only to be a court of appeal for a civil trial but also for a Board of Internal Economy decision that has been made.

As I am also a member of that board, I know that oftentimes we will revisit decisions if new factual information comes to light. However, this is the first time in my short tenure in this place that I have seen a Board of Internal Economy matter essentially appealed to the Chair.

It is important to state that in the member's remarks—and I take some offence to this fact—he portrays himself as if speaking for the House in this matter. That is perhaps taking a rather broad swipe at what has occurred here. It was an individual member who decided, along political or philosophic lines, and he is entitled to say things. We also know there is privilege that attaches us to this place. However, this is a factually different situation where an individual member, for whatever reason, took it upon himself to make some very provocative and potentially personally offensive remarks about an individual in the other place. This has played itself out in such a way that he now finds himself the target of a civil suit.

I take great sympathy for what he is going through and the personal cost that this may entail. However, there is a degree of fiscal and moral accountability that is playing itself out here. It is one thing to say something in this Chamber and then rely on privilege, but to say things outside the House or to take it one step further and actually publish something about another individual or an institution, one has to be prepared to reap what one sows.

I do not want to prolong this, but I feel it is pre-emptive for the Chair to rule on the appeal at this point, particularly given that this is still the subject of a lawsuit that is pending, and particularly given the fact that we have already dealt with this, I would suggest, in a fairly substantial way at the Board of Internal Economy.