House of Commons Hansard #63 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was yea.

Topics

The House resumed from March 3 consideration of the motion.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:05 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to talk about this issue which stems from an awful disaster that happened in 1992 in Nova Scotia not too far from my riding. I remember it well. I was the member of parliament for Cumberland—Colchester at the time. I represent an area that has a large number of coal mines and we have seen our share of coal mine disasters in Springhill, River Hebert, Joggins and all those places that thrived on coal in the early years. This motion is very dear to my heart.

The father of the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who initiated this motion was the member of parliament for that area. I remember going to the scene of the disaster and the Hon. Elmer MacKay was there virtually 24 hours a day until it was determined that there was no more hope for the 26 miners lost. He worked with the people hand in hand and was always present to help them.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for working so hard to ensure that workplace safety is a top priority of the Government of Canada as well as the business community.

We will be voting on this motion. It will be interesting to see which members are in favour of amending the criminal code to protect workers in Canada from coast to coast. I am confident this motion will gain the support of the entire House or at least one would certainly hope so considering the ramifications.

This morning on the airplane coming to Ottawa I happened to open the Globe and Mail and there was a story that reminded me of the Westray incident. The article stated: “Ashen-faced relatives stood in silence watching rescuers coated in coal dust drag up the bodies of the people killed in the Ukrainian mine disaster”. That just happened hours ago and it sounds exactly like what happened in Westray. The draegermen were bringing up the bodies. It was such a sad thing and to think it could have been avoided.

I would like to take a moment this morning to read the motion. It is important that we remember what we are talking about. I will read the motion into the record so that everybody is clear about what we are dealing with. Motion No. 79 states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.

What could make more sense than that? The awful thing is that the study to which the hon. member refers was started in 1992 and was just tabled in 1997. His motion stems from that study.

The need for a rational standard of business behaviour goes without saying. However it is every bit as important that once the laws are established, provisions are created to ensure that bureaucrats do not tokenize the enforcement of those laws. There can be no double standards.

Enforcement administrators often give way to political influences that persuade them that enforcement of workplace legislation will sacrifice jobs and scare away industry. Enforcement apathy is often rationalized by the political suggestion that by giving a company the right amount of time the problem will be fixed. This is often proven blatantly untrue.

Those people who have been persuaded that jobs and votes are higher priorities than life enter into a clear conflict of interest and it must stop. Many well-intentioned business executives agree with this motion because it provides safety legislation in the workplace. However there are still some who do not. Sadly the benefits of their behaviours accrue only to those executives and those people involved, while the workers, their families and ultimately the Canadian taxpayer pay for their gain. In fact current tax credit laws favour non-compliant employers.

Collectively workers represent the wealthiest group of people and consumers in the country. It is from these workers that taxes are collected which in turn fund the infrastructure which stimulates an environment that creates additional wealth, so long as the workers and employees remain healthy.

When injured, taxpayers often pay the financial costs of rehabilitation, death benefits, retraining and lost productivity that exceeds $16 billion annually. Every day through their efforts Canadian workers earn the right to be protected with enforceable legislation.

As an investment it is good business and cost justified to protect Canadian employees. A small number of executives still escape liability because their lawyers show them how to hide behind jurisdictional boundaries. Even if convicted of violating the occupational health and safety statutes, existing provincial penalties are minimal compared to the rewards generated by their violation. This motion would require total accountability of executives with no loopholes.

Unfortunately we have seen many examples of occupational safety in the workplace taking second spot behind the bottom line, especially in the mining industry where the very nature of the work involves a great deal of risk. It is the duty of company officers to ensure the work is done in the safest possible conditions.

I again refer to the newspaper article about the Ukrainian explosion which so mirrors the Westray explosion. The article said “a preliminary investigation suggested that Saturday's accident was a methane explosion caused by a violation of safety standards”. That is exactly what happened at Westray.

Ukraine's energy minister also said that safety violations were likely at fault. The miners usually blame accidents on the unwillingness of officials to spend money on maintaining or upgrading safety equipment. History certainly has repeated itself there.

Often corporate executives sometimes seem less interested in the merits of workplace safety in pursuit of the bottom line. This is a very dangerous scenario. We must be mindful of it and do everything we can to prevent it.

In the case of the Westray tragedy, labour safety standards, in particular minimal safety standards, were not adhered to to the extent they should have been, much like we have read about regarding the Ukrainian explosion.

Looking at this issue in the larger context, there must also be recognition of the role of government to ensure proper standards are met, not only set but met. It stands to reason that when weighing business goals versus those of safety, sometimes businesses find themselves pulled in many ways. They have to meet production deadlines, outperform competitors, increase bottom lines, et cetera. That is where the human element and the safety issue must be exercised.

Far too often businesses and indeed heads of corporations are obsessed with financial gain leaving the safety of their workers neglected. That type of short term gain often results in long term pain, as was the case at Westray.

One thing that really struck me was the name of the study. The report that was done on the Westray mine disaster was entitled “A Predictable Path to Disaster”. That is a sad commentary on safety in the mining industry and the executives involved in that industry. A predictable path; they could have predicted that the disaster was going to happen, yet it still did.

Safety regulations, management and government all failed in their duties to those miners. Tough economic times which exist in the country put further pressure on workers. That is why this is so timely. The economic impact of having to shut down a corporation affects everyone in that company. The employees, management, board of directors and anyone associated with that business are going to feel a negative impact if there has to be an operational shutdown as a result of a potential breach of safety.

That is the cost of doing business and we have to do everything to ensure that those safety practices are followed. In the case of Westray they were almost trivial things which were overlooked: sensors shut down, alarms disconnected, comments from the miners disregarded, and things like that.

Companies must ensure the avoidance of hazardous or illegal practices such as those which cannot be condoned in any capacity. If companies have not already done so, they should do everything within their power to implement safe and ethical work practices. Ethics such as these should be studied and followed everywhere in places of employment, especially in upper management. If this is not the case, action must be taken to demonstrate the importance and seriousness of the issue. Business executives must promote and nurture safe work ethics and have an open and approachable attitude toward all employees.

As Nova Scotia experienced with the Westray disaster, senior bureaucrats within the provincial workplace and enforcement agencies became compromised by regional politics and vested interests. This practice is suspected to be occurring in other provinces even today, almost eight years after that explosion.

I want to wind up my comments by saying that I hope the whole House will look at this bill for what it is. It is a motion to protect workers in a very unsafe situation. It addresses a terrible safety record. It is time now that we in the House pull together and do something to address those issues.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address this motion. For me, one of the most profound and distressing events that occurred in Nova Scotia during my 14 years of serving as leader of the New Democratic Party in that province was the Westray disaster, which absolutely avoidably and unnecessarily cost 26 miners their lives and cost their families the loss of loved ones.

I have always taken seriously the request that was made to me by some of the widows of those Westray miners that I, along with every other elected politician in office, pledge to ensure that the fathers of the children of those Westray miners would not have lost their lives in vain because we would move to put in place the necessary legislation, the necessary protection, to ensure that no such disaster could ever occur again in Nova Scotia or anywhere in the country, and this is the subject of the motion that is before us.

I am torn by conflicting emotions as we discuss this motion. On the one hand I am filled with hope, and I think many Canadian workers will be, that health and safety is the subject of debate in the House. That is a very important thing and I want to commend the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for bringing forward this motion and other members of the House who have risen to support the motion that is before us. The needless loss of 26 miners still buried beneath the ground has not been forgotten, and that is a very important message.

As the previous member who spoke indicated, one cannot be unmindful of the chilling news of the death of 80 miners in Ukraine which has occurred in the last few days. Let us not be so smug in the House as to think that the same kind of unsafe conditions, the same kind of neglect by employers and governments cannot repeat itself in Canada. Until we take serious legislative measures to put in place the protections that are necessary, including an enactment in legislation of the sentiment of this motion, this situation can and indeed will occur again.

The disappointing thing at this point in the debate about this very important health and safety topic is that it would appear that it is the intention of the federal Liberal government to never really put this debate into action. The intention of the government is not only to try to forget the lost lives at Westray, but to ignore the simple, horrifying reality across the country that there are workers who continue to be put into unsafe working conditions and the people who put them there remain immune from criminal responsibility.

There will be, no doubt, Liberal members of parliament who will stand in protest and they too will proclaim their concern, their care about Canadian workers, how they hope a disaster like Westray will never again happen. However, until we enact legislation that embodies the spirit of this motion, then such speeches will be little more than empty rhetoric.

Motion No. 79 is just that, it is a motion. It has no legislative implications. Indeed we have seen in the past that this government will from time to time support such motions, only to ignore the issue in its entirety when it comes to enacting legislation to express the intent of the motion.

However, in this case the government will not be allowed to fool the Canadian people so easily because it is our responsibility to ensure that the government is forced to act upon this.

At issue in this motion is recommendation No. 73 of the exhaustive Westray report. That recommendation would establish criminal responsibility for decision makers who knowingly put their workers at undue risk. It is the basis for this motion and the basis for my private member's Bill C-259.

Supporting the motion which is before us would tell Canadian workers that their representatives will stand for them. Supporting Bill C-259 would show Canadian workers that their representatives will stand for them. Unfortunately, the government appears determined to send a very different message.

I bring to the attention of the House where the Liberal government stands today on workplace safety. I will quote from letters written by members of the government in response to my requests for support for Bill C-259. What did the Minister of Labour say? She said that it falls under the jurisdiction of the justice department. The translation of her statement is that worker safety is not the labour minister's problem.

What about the Minister of Justice? She said:

I share your concern that people in Canada should not be able to hold themselves above the law...my officials are giving this recommendation every consideration.

The translation of that statement is “We have had three years to do something about this, but don't hold your breath”.

I think the clincher comes from the Prime Minister's office:

I share your concerns about the Westray Mine explosion...that is why the government has a comprehensive range of programs to promote workplace safety.

The translation of that statement is “Despite everything that the Westray inquiry documented, despite the recommendations coming out of the Westray inquiry, despite the fact that workers continue to be put in unsafe working conditions, there is no real problem. The existing regime does the job”.

If the existing regime did the job, then there would not have been 26 miners' lives lost in the Westray explosion.

I plead with members of the House to recognize that this is not a partisan issue. We all know that every member elected to the House of Commons has constituents who, at this very moment, as we speak about the motion which is before us, are working in unsafe conditions, who are forced to work in unsafe conditions because of the inadequacy of the legislation that exists in the country.

Whether to stand for those working Canadians is not a choice. Standing for those Canadians working in unsafe health and safety conditions is our obligation and I urge every member of the House to vote in support of the motion which is before us.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:20 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Motion No. 79. I commend the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his commitment to this issue and his foresight in introducing this motion in the House of Commons for debate.

It is unfortunate that an issue of this importance—the issue of accountability for corporate executives and occupational safety—is not taken more seriously by the government. It is very frustrating for individual members of the House to pursue public policy issues with such vigour, initiative and vision on behalf of Canadians when they are continually shut down by the government. Instead of focusing on the types of important public policy initiatives that Canadians need into the next century, it is only focused on next week's polls.

The Westray disaster of May 9, 1992 continues to resonate as a beacon of what should be done to improve worker safety, not just in Canada but around the world.

Earlier today I heard the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester speak of the recent mine disaster in Ukraine. Canada can play a role in introducing changes to our criminal code that would be world leading in terms of their impact on occupational health and safety issues and corporate accountability, not just in Canada but around the world.

I remember the time of the disaster in 1992. I was on business in New York when I heard the news. It was one of the few times I listened to national public radio in New York. I was running in Central Park when I heard the news. It was one of the few times that I ever heard about Nova Scotia in the U.S. national media. It was a sad moment because, of all the positive things that we understand about Nova Scotia and Canada, it is often this kind of disaster that captures the U.S. media. The sadness continues to affect those families, whose lives have been forever changed by the disaster.

I am not surprised that the government is opposed to improving corporate accountability on occupational health and safety issues. This is the same government that ignores issues of accountability even for its cabinet ministers. One of the fundamental tenets of our democratic system and of parliamentary democracy is the accountability of ministers of the crown. The government ignores even the accountability of ministers in its own cabinet. For example, the debacle with the HRDC minister has focused the attention of Canadians on issues of waste in government in recent weeks. I guess it is consistent with this government that it continues to ignore issues of accountability, whether it is corporate accountability in the case of Motion No. 79 or ministerial accountability in terms of the government's malaise in effecting positive change with respect to the accountability of its own ministers.

The chilling message that came from the Westray disaster was that even today, in this day and age, occupational health and safety issues continually are ignored by companies, particularly, it would seem, in the coal mining industry, but in other sectors as well.

Increasingly executives are compensated based on stock options. While that can be very positive in terms of creating a synergistic relationship between the goals of the executive from a compensatory perspective and the goals of the shareholders by encouraging executives to maximize shareholder value, it can also focus the efforts of executives on very short term results which can often have a negative impact on the long term results of a company, whether it is corporate and financial, or in this case the safety of workers.

We cannot put a price on life. It is impossible to value human life on a balance sheet or on an earnings statement. Often companies are so focused on the bottom line that they forget the basics of humanity in terms of providing a safe work space for workers who, every day of their lives in the coal mining industry, in this case, risk their lives.

Government needs to provide a role in overseeing and ensuring that on an ongoing basis these workers are protected by changing the criminal code as recommended by the Westray inquiry. With this legislation we would ensure that government continue to play the very important role that only government can play to ensure that the corporate sector does its part to ensure the safety of workers in what is a very dangerous industry.

Part of the issue as well is temptation. Far too often in areas like Atlantic Canada that have seen significant economic issues and a downturn over the last 30 years, in the haste to attract and to maintain industry there is a tendency to turn a blind eye to some of the health and safety issues. That very short term focus is going to have some very negative long term results.

The Government of Canada can play a proactive role in the same light that the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is playing a proactive visionary role in introducing this motion. The government can play a proactive visionary role in actually supporting legislation to ensure that there are not different sets of health and safety standards for different regions of the country. Just because a region has some economic downturn issues, the workers in that region should not have to suffer with poorer occupational health standards.

The legislation proposed in the motion would effect change in the criminal code which would actually ensure that across Canada corporate executives faced the same stringent level of accountability. Atlantic Canada would see, whether it is in the coal mining industry or another industry, a greater level of protection for workers. They go to work every day and struggle to make ends meet, to try to build a better future for themselves, for their families and for Canada. They should not have to live under the pall of a daily unnecessary threat to their lives and their safety because of corporate negligence.

I encourage all members of the House to support Motion No. 79. I commend the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for proposing very sound legislation in the motion. We need to ensure that occupational health and safety issues are dealt with in the same way that environmental issues are dealt with strongly by the criminal code.

Corporate executives must be responsible not just to their shareholders but to Canadians at large, to the workers who toil in the mines, to the wildlife that depend on a clean environment. We need to ensure that environmental standards, health and safety and occupational health issues are dealt with appropriately.

The only way to deal with these issues in the economically driven and globally competitive society we live in today is through strong changes to the criminal code to ensure that all workers are safe in their workplace. All corporate executives must do everything they can to ensure that Canada has the highest standards in occupational health and safety in the world.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:30 a.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Madam Speaker, it was not my intention to speak to the motion. However because the previous three members who spoke have more or less moved away from the generalities of the motion and directed their attention solely to the Westray disaster, I would like to make a contribution. I am a mining engineer by profession and I have worked many years underground in many parts of the world. I would like to give the House my particular take on this disaster.

The last member who spoke made specific reference to the negligence of the regulatory system. He did not use those words but I will use them. I believe that the heart of the problem at Westray was that there was such enormous political pressure to open this mine in the first place, when there was good advice from mining experts that it was not a viable operation, that the shaft should never have been sunk, that they had had methane problems in that area historically every time they tried to mine there. There was definitely a recommendation that the mine not be developed. However, because of provincial and federal pressures and the huge amounts of government money put forward to get this thing going, there was also pressure on the regulatory system. As I understand it, and I stand to be corrected, I believe the mine inspector was under considerable pressure not to shut that operation down.

When I was working in the mines, I never ever encountered a situation where line management was anything but safety conscious. Line managers would do whatever was necessary to keep a mine safe. They had the advantage of having the mine inspectors behind them. In other words, even if management in Toronto said they had to get production up, line management could still do whatever was necessary to keep the mine safe. They had the full weight and force of the mine inspector behind them because the mine inspector could shut them down. They had that power.

We are perhaps shooting at the wrong target here. The problem at Westray was not governance. The problem at Westray was safety enforcement. Perhaps we might say that line management was guilty but the mine inspection system failed. Any mine inspector should have been able to spot the violations which have been described here which took place in that mine.

Because there was this one particular disaster, let us not talk about revamping a law which has served us well over the years. That is the law which exempts directors. I am not talking about executives or line management; I am talking about directors. Who in the devil would want to be the director of a company if he or she was going to be held responsible for things that are happening out in the field? The directors do not make managerial decisions. They have nothing to do with it.

A man would have to be insane to accept a directorial position for which he is paid a very small amount of money with most companies. There are directors of multinational companies who are well paid, but the directors of most companies work for an honorarium. They get paid so much a meeting and that is it. Who would take on a position like that? Not me, not if I were going to be held responsible for something that happened 2,000 or 3,000 miles away that I did not know anything about and had no input into.

The problem here is government, government, government. The government failed. The civil servants failed. A group of miners was unnecessarily killed because the inspection system did not work. The inspection system did not do its job. We rely on regulators in industry in this country to keep everyone honest and they did not do it.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member sponsoring this motion for his tenacity, since I recall this motion being discussed in a previous session. He has now been faithful to himself and introduced it again, in light of the seriousness of the issue it raises.

A mine explosion in Nova Scotia raised the question of whether the legislation was or was not equal to the task of properly handling a similar situation. The government of the province mandated Justice Peter Richard to carry out a public inquiry in order to cast light on all of the circumstances surrounding this tragedy.

An extremely sizeable report, released in November 1997, provided a chronology of all of the events and a highly detailed analysis of the legislation. The judge primarily addressed provincial labour law, however, in keeping with the Nova Scotia ministerial order.

Hon. members will realize we will set aside that part of the report that addresses provincial legislation, because this is the federal level and we do not want to do what the federal government is generating complaints for doing, namely meddling in jurisdictions which are not ours.

The judge did make some comments on the Criminal Code and call for certain things. We should perhaps act on his observations in view of what he asked and show how seriously we take the report.

I repeat this, because I think it important: we support the motion of the Conservative member, but we would like it to be examined in the light of federal legislation. In order for this to occur, the motion has to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for consideration.

With what I heard today, members will understand, there is nothing much left for me to say, except to move an amendment to Motion M-79.

I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following between the words “amended” and “in accordance”: “following study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights”.

Once this study is complete, federal legislation may be really focused accordingly and in appropriate response to the judge in the matter.

I will quote what the judge said in this regard and more precisely recommendation 73 of the report, which the Conservative member's motion refers to. Recommendation 73 of the Richard report reads as follows:

The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, should institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.

This recommendation gives us the opening I mentioned earlier to intervene in this matter and especially to do a detailed study of all aspects of mining safety. I therefore move this amendment.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:40 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Prior to the expiry of private members' hour I wish to advise the Chair that following consultations with my colleagues from all parties, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to defer the vote on Motion No. 79 until Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at the end of government orders.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:40 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is there unanimous consent of the House to proceed in such a manner?

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House as a member from Nova Scotia to discuss the merits of Motion No. 79 put forward by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, one of my neighbouring ridings.

I want to thank the hon. member for bringing the motion to debate in the House of Commons. I believe that health and safety is something that should be debated in the House of Commons on a regular basis.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, and on behalf of workers across the country, I would like to offer a solemn prayer and hope in our hearts for the wives and children of the 80 miners who were recently killed in a blast in Ukraine. I believe I speak on behalf of all members of the House of Commons in sending our sincere condolences to everyone in Ukraine.

This motion works in conjunction with Bill C-259, a private member's bill which the hon. member for Halifax, the leader of the New Democratic Party, introduced concerning workers' health and safety rights and bringing those who are criminally responsible to justice.

What happened at Westray did not have to happen. Miners and their families are very concerned about their loved ones who go underground on a daily basis to earn their bread, and to pay their taxes so that we in the House of Commons can put forth legislation to protect them. For us to ignore their demands and wishes is a dereliction of our responsibilities and our duties. We simply cannot allow this to happen any longer.

There was an exhaustive Westray report which made some very serious and admirable recommendations, but that report is now three years old. What has the government done? Absolutely nothing. I wonder if it is waiting for the next mine disaster before doing something. Is it waiting for an election to be called before it enacts legislation? It seems that is the only thing that will make the federal Liberals move.

After a balanced and exhaustive report which was done to improve the lives and the health and safety of workers in the communities, especially in the extremities of the country outside Ottawa, the government sits on the report and does absolutely nothing.

Our party was founded on the principles of workers' safety and workers' rights. We started in the CCF, with J. S. Woodsworth, right up to the NDP led by the hon. member for Halifax. We have been fighting day in and day out with our provincial counterparts and our friends in the labour movement, with the CLC, to fight for and protect workers' rights throughout the country.

On average, three workers lose their lives on a daily basis. Three workers is three workers too many.

When I was growing up in Vancouver, 15 workers lost their lives working on the Portmann Bridge.

On behalf of all Nova Scotians and working people throughout the country, I encourage all political parties, especially those in government, to take heed of this very special motion, as well as the bill of my leader, Bill C-259, to take very seriously the recommendations for workers' rights and safety and to ignore the concerns of people like Clifford Frame and Peggy Whitte who have absolutely no moral leadership in the country, who want to extract wealth at the cheapest price possible, including that of labour, and who leave the country when a disaster happens. There was absolutely no moral leadership, and for any government to support those two people over workers' rights is absolutely disastrous and scandalous.

I encourage the entire House to support Motion No. 79 put forward by my hon. colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:45 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm is in order.

It being 11.50 a.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, March 21, at the end of the time provided for Government Orders.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

11:50 a.m.

The Speaker

Before I hear a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary, I would inform the House that I have received two letters this morning.

I received a letter from the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, chief whip of the Bloc Quebecois, and another from the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, deputy leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

These letters have to do with the question of privilege raised earlier by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.

If these are new questions of privilege, I will hear them. If this is about the question of privilege that was raised earlier by the hon. member, I will hear members on new facts surrounding that question, since I am now in the process of preparing the ruling regarding this question of privilege.

I am told also that another letter was sent by the Bloc Quebecois leader regarding this issue and I am sure that the hon. Bloc Quebecois leader also wants to address this issue.

If there are new facts, I will hear them.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that I raise this question of privilege regarding what I told you about on March 1, and regarding the point of order raised by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, on Friday, March 3.

At the time, I asked you to examine a serious violation of the privileges as parliamentarians of Bloc Quebecois members in this House.

I gave you proof that the deputy principal clerk had rejected amendments that we had not even tabled with the Journals Branch, since he based his decision on the legislative counsel's data bank, rather than on the amendments actually tabled by the Bloc Quebecois.

I demonstrated to you that the freedom of speech of the members of my party and their right to confidential dealings with the legislative counsel had been violated.

Not only had the House staff usurped the right of the Bloc MPs to select the amendments they intended to propose, but it also committed a breach of confidentiality by consulting the body of amendments the Bloc Quebecois had had the legislative counsel prepare.

At the time I raised this question of privilege, I expressed serious misgivings about the decision making process surrounding the receivability of the amendments at the report stage. In fact, certain amendments that were declared out of order were amended in accordance with the comments by the Deputy Principal Clerk in order to render them in order. Yet they were again deemed to be out of order.

This new decision was then made the object of a point of order by my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry who expressed, on behalf of his colleagues, his dismay about this new refusal by your staff. These events, which occurred during the week prior to last week's parliamentary recess, have a negative effect on the debate at report stage on Bill C-20, which was begun on Friday, March 3 and is scheduled to resume today.

Some amendments will be neither debated nor voted on, while we have serious reservations about the grounds on which the staff based the decision that they were not in order. The very process by which amendments were selected might be questioned, as it seems to be tainted by a number of defects and irregularities.

On these grounds, Mr. Speaker, you have a duty to bring down your decision on my point of privilege of March 1 last, and on the point of order raised by my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry, and to do so before resuming the debate at report stage and before beginning today's voting process, because the government House leader is obviously preparing to propose a time allocation motion, which will force the House to decide on the motions at report stage starting at 6.30 this evening.

The Bloc Quebecois will have great difficulty in taking part in a process of debate and voting which is a deviation from the rules and conventions of this House.

Do not treat this point of privilege lightly. The gravity of the situation imposes a duty to exercise diligence. The credibility of the institution that is the House of Commons is at stake.

I would remind you that I am still prepared to make the necessary motion to return this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, particularly the one element—for my point of privilege involved two matters—relating to the examination of a motion of privilege, which would refer to that committee the question raised by the rejection of two never-introduced amendments.

Before the debate is resumed, or as promptly as possible, and especially before we vote, I expect your decision on the point of order raised by my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

11:55 a.m.

The Speaker

What I have heard is simply a summary of what you said on March 1, before we left for the week's recess. I have heard nothing new at this point. I have heard no new facts at this point. I ask the members again, if they wish to intervene, to keep to the facts. The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, what is new is that there will be closure in a few minutes and we want to know whether you will give a ruling on either the motion by the member for Rimouski—Mitis or on the question of privilege raised on the point of order before we vote this afternoon.

It is new, because as far as we are concerned, and I am speaking for myself personally and for all the members of my party, we would be put in a situation where we would feel the debate on Bill C-20 would not be impartial here. That is a serious matter.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

Noon

The Speaker

What the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois has just said is very serious. It questions the position of the Speaker of the House. We must absolutely be impartial. We must manage as the rules we have here require. I hope the impartiality of the Speaker of the House of Commons will never be challenged.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

Noon

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, if we were to vote without hearing a decision or a ruling on what was raised, which is very serious, my colleagues and I would be in such a situation.

I want to know whether the ruling will be given before we vote.