Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 358

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a while ago, the President of Treasury Board told us that he would look into the physical possibility of tabling the document on which there was an agreement.

Could the President of Treasury Board tell us what progress he has made in his search?

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a question of privilege. I called for comments just on that.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe that my privileges in the House have been affected.

The government House leader knew of the agreement in principle. We on this side of the House did not. We only knew that the government had some announcement to make. As a result, how could my privileges not have been affected by their not announcing before the vote that in fact there was an agreement in principle?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege. The hon. government House leader has just admitted that he is in essence an accomplice to what took place because he came into the House and made reference to the fact—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I do not think we are advancing the cause by saying what happened among various members.

The question before the House was and is whether any hon. member's privileges were violated in any way by the non-disclosure of certain facts that may or may not have been in essence, as appears now from the answers we have, true at a certain time earlier this evening prior to the vote.

The Chair's view is that members' privileges of freedom of speech have not been impaired in any way by this non-disclosure. While members may have a grievance and a complaint, it is not one that affects their privileges. Accordingly I feel there is no question of privilege to be raised here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to extend the questions and comments for another 10 minutes. I have not had an opportunity to ask a very short question of the minister, as I am sure is the case for many members present. We could resolve this a lot quicker by extending it. I ask for unanimous consent to extend the questions and comments of the minister for another 10 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There is a certain amount of confusion here. The Chair was asked to ensure that, in order for the debate to progress and so that we could do our job as parliamentarians, we could be able to look at the agreement, the written text, and all the information.

Does the Chair intend to ensure that we will have that information in due course, because we submit to you that this is really where our privileges as parliamentarians are being affected?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is not in a position to ask that documents be tabled unless the House itself has asked for them. At the present time there is no motion or order for production of documents made by the House. Therefore, the Chair is not in a position to do so.

The minister said he would answer a few questions, and would table the agreement arrived at, if possible. Then the minister said something about that. We might want to debate this, but for the time being let us resume debate on the matter before the House.

Would the minister like to add something.

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

Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to say that according to the information I received from our negotiator, both parties have agreed not to reveal the details of the agreement at this time.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I want to make the point that my privileges have definitely been infringed upon this evening in this debate.

If there were a tentative agreement at 10.10 this evening and I voted at 11.40, one hour and 30 minutes later, everybody on this side of the House voted on the assumption that there was a work stoppage, that there was no tentative agreement, and everybody on that side of the House voted knowing there was a tentative agreement. I guarantee everybody's privileges on this side of the House were infringed upon.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid that I have already ruled on that point of order. It was the same one raised by the whip of the official opposition. That is not a question of privilege.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification on your ruling. Do you believe there was indeed a breach of parliamentary privilege when the government withheld information and lied to the House? We would like to understand the meaning—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. Members have certain privileges that are defined in the materials that are on the table. They can read Beauchesne's and Erskine May and they can read that there are certain privileges.

The privilege of freedom of speech is one of those privileges. There is a privilege of freedom from arrest and so on, but there is not freedom of information or guarantee of information.

What we have here is a situation where the minister has indicated that the agreement cannot be produced. He is not in a position to table it. Members will have to continue without the agreement. That is the point.

I recognize the hon. member on debate.

I did not give the floor to the member on a point of order, but to resume the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something that is very important at this time in this House.

A deliberate omission is a grave contempt according to Erskine May's 22nd edition. A deliberate omission is a form of contempt. The government deliberately misled the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, for your information, I do know Beauchesne's and Erskine May, and if those members bothered to read it they would see it in there.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point regarding the House leader's point and that is the fact that what was presented by the President of Treasury Board this evening does not change the substance of the issue. It does not change the substance of the issue. The fact is that there was an agreement reached—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It is quite clear that the points of order and the questions of privilege, while of interest, will not resolve the issue before the House.

We are on debate and I suggest that we get back to the debate on second reading of the bill before the House. The Chair is running out of patience on points of order. I will hear a few more and then there will be no more. They are getting very repetitious and I cannot continue all night.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I only ask that you would rule on the House leader's point. The House leader of the Reform Party has brought up a very germane point to this debate.

In Erskine May, the textbook which you quoted earlier, it says that a deliberate omission by the government constitutes a contempt of this place. In my opinion, and I think it is pretty obvious what any layman's interpretation would be, there was a deliberate omission to make sure the opposition parties did not have that information in their hands when we voted on a key vote at close to midnight on a key motion on which closure had been imposed.

If it is a deliberate omission, and by their own omission it was in their knowledge, in their presence, in their hands well before this House voted on Motion No. 21 put by the government, then it was a deliberate attempt to withhold information from the official opposition and the opposition parties in this House.

The vote that was held afterward means that every single member of parliament on this side of the House was deliberately misled and left out of the information circle that had a crucial effect on the vote which followed.

If that was deliberate, and if it is in Erskine May, then, Mr. Speaker, I think you should find the minister in contempt of the House and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously questions of bad faith are not mentioned here, but this is a question of bad faith.

The motion on which the vote took place was on a motion for closure. It had nothing to do with the act itself. I have already indicated that the bill itself is not changed by the fact that there has been an agreement in principle. The need for the bill to be passed is not affected by the agreement in principle. It is not affected, on the one hand, because the blue collar workers have not ratified the deal and can, therefore, still strike with the same effect that they have had in the past 10 weeks. The prisoner guards can also still strike. Therefore, the substance of the act does not change.

The vote that took place was on a motion for closure which was not affected in any way, shape or form by the tentative agreement that was reached tonight.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, not to belabour the point, but the question that needs to be asked is quite simple. Were the Liberal members, especially the backbenchers in this House of Commons, given access to that information at 10.10 p.m., long before the opposition members were? That is the question. Were the Liberal members given access to that information an hour before the members on this side of the House?

The whip of the official opposition is absolutely correct. It is quite probable in all circumstance that the Liberal members were given information long before the members of this House. If that is the case, the minister is in contempt.

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

Mr. Speaker, our point is still valid. The minister is incorrect in his assertion. The vote taken was not on closure. The vote taken happened to be on Motion No. 21. The minister is incorrect. This government or this minister is in contempt. It is in Erskine May and we want it remedied tonight, now.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the allegation of the opposition, it is that somehow a member of the government sitting on this side of the House failed to disclose something during the debate that preceded our vote at about 11 o'clock. I hope it has not escaped the notice of members opposite that, by my recollection, no member of the government front benches was speaking at that time. I think I recall opposition members speaking at that time.

Secondly, just prior to 11 o'clock, as one government backbencher, I did make an attempt to ascertain the status of a number of things. In reply to my questions I was told that I would have to wait for the hon. treasury board president's speech to the House.

I think the opposition members are whistling here at 12.40 in the morning.