Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 358

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

Mr. Speaker, to offer support to the House leader of the official opposition, I want to make a couple of points.

We were told by the minister after we voted that there was a tentative agreement. I would suggest that what that means is that the union executive is going to recommend this to its membership. That is crucial information that we must have before taking the vote. The vote was not on closure and we are not in routine proceedings.

We are planning to sit in this House all night, for 24 hours, and that is information that should have been provided to us.

Out of the courtesy to the union, we should be giving it an opportunity to accept that tentative agreement as opposed to turning this into a national crisis. That is very germane to the issue at hand. It is unbelievable that the minister would not come in and say, before the vote, that he had some information for the House.

I agree that it was deliberately withheld. We are aware of members of the backbenches who were talking about this before they came into the House. That has just been brought to my attention.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I quote from Beauchesne's. Citation 93 reads:

It is generally accepted that any threat, or attempt to influence the vote of, or actions of a Member, is a breach of privilege.

If the minister knew this information at 10.10 p.m., and I was asked to vote later without that same information, the minister, by not giving us that information before the vote, was trying to influence the vote. I use Beauchesne's to back up that argument.

I ask the Speaker to rule on the issue. The minister knew before we voted. I was not allowed to vote with the full knowledge of what the minister knew. That is a breach of my privileges.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is factually incorrect. Surely the hon. member who raised this, who was himself a speaker of a provincial legislature, knows better than to make these claims. It is because he is a credible member that he should not say these things.

The title of the section that the member is quoting from is entitled “Interfering with Members”. It has to do with the fact that a policeman attempted to stop a member from having access to the precincts of parliament. That is the premise of the section from which he is quoting. He is trying to indicate through reference to that section that somehow he might have voted differently on a previous order of the House—government Motion No. 21 standing in my name, not the one before us, Bill C-76, in the name of a completely different minister—and that either I or he has interfered with him. That is incorrect. So are a number of other allegations that have been made.

When I came into the lobby at approximately 10.45 p.m., it was the first I had heard that a tentative agreement was possible, the details of which I knew nothing and which were revealed almost immediately by the President of the Treasury Board as soon as we finished voting.

Everyone here has acted in good faith. Everyone is trying to do what is best for the people of Canada. That is still our determination. That is still what we want to do. Everyone in this House knows it. Even those who are disagreeing with us know that we are working for that common good, with no other objective in mind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened closely to what the hon. government House leader has said. However, by his very admission what we heard was that at least one other member, other than the President of the Treasury Board, knew about this.

The point that has been made by the opposition House leader is still very relevant, that perhaps not only members on this side of the House have been denied the privilege of this information that is very telling and would impact on how members would cast their votes, but also members of the government side of the House. They would have very much liked to have been informed that a tentative agreement had been reached.

We are talking about the process in government Motion No. 21, the process that would very much impact on the way this debate was to be constructed and the vote that would finally be taken on the bill itself. This is information that was purposely withheld. Therefore, I suggest that there is a breach of the privilege of hon. members which would impact on the way that they would cast their vote. It is a prima facie case.

I suggest that there is enough evidence before the House for the Chair to make a ruling on this matter.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the comments by the government House leader, that section on interfering with members is not totally to deal with police interference in the House. I go by section 92:

A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a member must relate to the member's parliamentary duties and not to the work a member does in relation to that member's constituency.

The member's duty in this House is to vote with full knowledge of what he is voting on.

The government House leader is correct that I was a Speaker in a former House. If any minister tried to pull this thing in my House he would have been held in contempt. Before I voted on this issue, this minister knew that an agreement had been signed, as did the House leader, but they did not relay that information to this side of the House, Her Majesty's official opposition and other opposition parties. That is holding this House in contempt and they will pay the price for that with the Canadian public.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition must be joking because the vote that has been taken is a vote on closure. I have checked. That is what Motion No. 21 does. Mr. Speaker, it was only after you called orders of the day that the bill was introduced for the first time. The information that we had an agreement in principle was irrelevant to the vote on Motion No. 21. It has nothing to do with it. No privilege was breached. There was no information that was relevant for the vote on Motion No. 21. I made the first speech at second reading of the bill and that speech mentioned that there was at that point an agreement in principle.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will show the minister how much we are joking. When you find the minister in contempt I have a motion that I will present and table in the House. Mr. Speaker, at some point when you make the decision on contempt we have the motion here.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is ready to deal with the question of privilege that has been raised. Members should regard the facts of what has transpired and the explanations that have been given by hon. members who have participated in the points of order that were raised, including the House leader and the whip of the official opposition, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, the President of the Treasury Board, the government House leader, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona who had something to say on this matter.

While all the issues that have been raised are no doubt important, the fact is the Chair is in a position where a decision is to be rendered on the question of whether there has been a prima facie contempt of the House committed by the minister by reason of the failure to disclose the fact that a tentative agreement had been entered into some time earlier this evening and before the vote took place in the House on a motion.

I want to stress the quality of this motion to the House. It was one that suspended the rules of the House in relation to the proceedings on this bill and we are now debating the bill before the House.

I note that the motion that dealt with the suspension of those rules was adopted and following that the bill was called. On the very first speech on the bill the minister disclosed to the House that in fact an agreement had been reached. It was his speech, his opening remarks on the bill.

Given the timing at which that started and given the fact that the vote took place very shortly after an agreement had been reached, I am not satisfied that the minister deliberately attempted to mislead the House on a prima facie basis and I am not therefore prepared to have a motion go forward at this stage. I believe it would be out of order.

I believe what is in order is for members to proceed with debate on the bill before the House and of course they are free to express their views as to the agreement, as to what the minister said about the agreement in the course of that debate and indeed to vote against the bill. I think that in the circumstances that is a reasonable way of proceeding given the fact that this agreement was achieved quite late.

In the circumstances I believe we should now proceed with the debate and I therefore call for resumption of debate on the bill.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since I would have voted exactly the opposite, I request that my vote on Motion No. 21 be reversed and I be recorded as being against that motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Such a request will require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, because of the information that was deliberately withheld from us which you ruled was not in contempt but which is material to how I would have voted on Motion No. 21, I would ask that my vote be reversed. If I had known what information the minister had I would have reversed it. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to reverse my vote on Motion No. 21 and oppose that motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow me to reverse my vote that was taken earlier due to the fact that the government deliberately withheld critical information.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also ask the consent of the House to reverse my vote on Motion No. 21.

I feel very strongly that the information was—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have given permission to the government to proceed in an emergent fashion in what we consider to be an emergent situation. Because of information known only to the minister and to a few select ministers in his cabinet which was withheld from me, if I had had that information I may have voted differently. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to change my vote.