Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Macleod.
This is a difficult debate to participate in as you can appreciate more than any of us. I say right off the bat that we recognize the discomfort you have been put in because of this debate. It is fair to say that most if not all members of the House like you very much personally and are very sorry to have seen this motion come forward.
The motion that has been put forward unfortunately is very narrow. It makes it difficult for all parties of the House to focus on exactly what we are debating. The motion talks about the decision of a particular question of privilege and also a decision to reject a point of order raised by another member of the Bloc. Only at the end does it talk about this being to the detriment of the rights and privileges of all members of the House.
I would have liked to have seen less of a focus on two particular decisions. I agree with members from the government side and other members who have rightly pointed out that if we are going to use our privileges as members to bring forward motions simply to stamp our feet and to show displeasure when the Speaker does not rule in our favour, clearly the House will become dysfunctional. That would be totally unacceptable both for members of the House and for democracy itself. That is one observation I wanted to make about this whole thing.
There is in this debate and in the comments that have been made a sense that perhaps members do not have entire confidence in the impartiality of yourself in the chair at times, Mr. Speaker. I think those comments have come forward. Not knowing you well and personally, but over the six years in my dealings with you, I know that you would be inclined to take those concerns extremely seriously. I am confident that you would take those in the spirit in which they are offered and would want to evaluate whether there is any merit in that feeling because of course none of us are disinterested, are we?
All of us have our own opinions and members of the House have very strong opinions. We are not very shy about putting them forward at times. That is why we must rely on you, Mr. Speaker, as a referee to use wisdom, grace and good balance in ensuring that the affairs of the House are conducted in a way that reflects credibly on all of us but also on our country.
This is not just about us. It certainly is not just about you. This is about Canadians, our democracy and our parliament. We are players in a drama that has significance for all of us in a broader context. I know you are aware of this, having heard you speak and knowing your keen appreciation of the history and the parliamentary conventions of our country. But it needs to be said that this is some indication that there is some discomfort perhaps with balance and impartiality and I know that you would take it seriously.
The question of privilege that was brought forward having to do with legislative counsel is of concern to me as well. When my colleague from Surrey brought this matter up in the House, I made some comments on it also. I would commend to you the concern of many members of the House with respect to legislative counsel on two fronts.
One is their right and responsibility as professionals to act in a way which respects the convention of solicitor-client privilege without fear of being penalized or fear of being censored or fear of not being treated fairly if they insist on doing that. This is extremely important and I would suggest it should not rest where it is at this point. It really does need to be dealt with in a way that takes it beyond where we are today.
The other thing is the whole matter—and I know you are aware of my feelings on this but I just want to mention them again briefly—of this element in your ruling of the team. I would suggest if one member of the team, being a member of parliament, has information which is integral to his or her role and their work as a member of parliament and it is shared with other people against the member's knowledge and consent, it is far from teamwork. With respect I think that element of your ruling did not commend itself to my logic. I would say that this is a burning issue which is not going to go away. It must be dealt with in a way that is fair to everyone.
As a member who respects you and respects this institution and democracy, the issue that sparked the debate on the motion today is an issue that must be dealt with in a different way than it has been today.
We have heard many opinions and you have many staunch defenders which is good. I am sure this has been very positive for you as you evaluate this debate. The issue is really whether this motion is worthy of support by members of the House. I would suggest that this is not a partisan matter, certainly not for me. This is not about the opposition or the government or about the Bloc or Reform, or other parties. This is really about whether we are prepared to submit ourselves to your authority acknowledging that to some degree this is a decision which cannot be taken frivolously or in a personal way.
We are all part of caucuses and we disagree with our colleagues from time to time. We even disagree with our leaders from time to time as you well know. This must be done with humility, grace, good sense, balance and an appreciation of the needs of the organization.
Your role is absolutely vital in the House of Commons. We appreciate the fact that you have operated with the skill, the grace, the good humour and the forbearance in many cases that you have shown. In my view perhaps this debate has helped to air some things and to bring to your attention perhaps some of the concerns on the minds of members. I think members who have been forthright enough to engage in the debate are to be commended. That is a very difficult thing to do because of the high respect in which both you and your office are held.
I would say that this has been, although painful, perhaps a healthy debate and one in which all of us have learned some things. I hope those comments will be helpful to members and to you in the context of the issue we have been discussing.