Debates of March 16th, 2000

House Of Commons

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is painful to listen to the remarks made by the member opposite in this context because during his whole speech—I repeat, during his whole speech—he only talked about the past.

He talked about all the accomplishments, but he forgot something essential, namely to talk about the issue we are debating today. I would like to know his opinion on this subject.

Since this morning, the Liberals have been trying to divert the debate we are having today. This debate has absolutely nothing to do with what happened last night in a vote that was won by the Liberals.

However, this debate is part of the process that led to that vote last night. Normally, it should have taken place before the bill was read the third time and passed. However, we know what the ruling was. The government rode roughshod over democracy to pass Bill C-20 so the Liberals could use this sad moment in the history of democracy to glorify themselves this weekend.

I would like to know from the member opposite whether he agrees that in 2000, not in 1940 or in 1950, we should be able to rely on people to do their work fairly, to keep this information confidential and not share them with partisan interests.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I came here in 1993. It was my first time as a member of parliament. The one thing I did over the first couple of years was to understand and respect the clerk, the table officers, the legal counsel and the Speaker of the House to do the right things for this institution and for Canadians across the country who we represent. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that full confidence in all of you.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you how pleased I am to be able to participate in this debate. I was not aware, earlier this morning, that it was being called today and had to negotiate fiercely in the back rooms to get here. I wanted to be here because this is an issue that I feel very strongly about.

I was first elected in 1988 in the provincial legislature in Manitoba at a time when our party had only one member in the House. All of a sudden, we became the official opposition overnight, not unlike what occurred with the Reform Party. I was made the House leader and, in the course of a very few hours, had to learn and understand all the rules, the procedure, the precedents and the history of the House in order to get a feeling for how this place must work.

As I was sitting here earlier today listening to the member for Edmonton North, I was interested when, toward the conclusion of her remarks, she made a comment about being concerned about a reduction in the democratic rights that exist in this House. I forget exactly how it was phrased but it was in that general area. I want to say that I agree with that. I think there is a problem. I do not think it is a problem that occurred this week or this month. I think it is a problem that has been growing over the last 30 years. Some who are better would go back further than that.

Because my particular interest is in the way in which communication moves in the world, I argue that it is because the world has speeded up so dramatically and there has been such a demand on this place to change. It has resisted change so much that one of the consequences has been that we have twisted some of the ways in which we function in order to accommodate these demands for speed by the external world rather than reform our institutions internally. I think we have to do that. It is an issue I study, an issue I write about and an issue I will be speaking about a great deal more. I wanted to take note that there is an important issue underlying this.

I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs and I did not feel good going into committee and proposing the motion for time allocation on its work. It was something that did not make me feel good. I do not think that is the best way to function in a democracy but I did it. Nobody told me to do that. I did it.

I stood up and voted for time allocation every time it was proposed because I think this place is broken. However, if that is the situation we are in, if that is the situation that has been created and if that is the situation we have to live with, then I will support those things that we need to do at this time in order to make this place work.

One of the reasons I supported it as strongly as I did with the Bloc members was because they had said that this place was not working the way it was supposed to work. It was not “Let's come together and debate ideas and see if we can find a constructive way to build a better country”. Instead it was “We are not going to allow this thing to happen, regardless. It doesn't matter what you do, what you say, what you propose, or how long. It is not going to change anything. All we are going to do is obstruct”.

I supported it and I did some things that I hope, over the course of the next two years, will bring some reform. It may take longer. Our esteemed clerk will have a better sense of how long it will take for this glacier to move. I think there needs to be reform in how we function in the House.

Having said that, I want to tell all hon. members of the House that it is not the role of the Speaker to do that. It is our responsibility to do that. The referee does not make the rules.

There is something else I find interesting. When I served as a house leader it was in a house where the Speaker was appointed by the government and there was always a sense that the Speaker really played on the other team. For the time I was in the House, the Speaker was the Hon. Denis Rocan, whom I think you know, Mr. Speaker. He became a good friend of mine because he was so even-handed in the way he handled the work he did, even though he was appointed by the government of the day.

Here that is not the case. This Speaker is our Speaker; not our, as in we, the government, but all of us. We elected him. In fact, if I recall, Mr. Speaker, in 1993 you ran against Liberals, so you were elected by all of us. There were members from all parties in the House who elected you.

I want to tell hon. members opposite that we do not agree with everything he does. I have heard more than one member over here express a bit of annoyance. It happens, but as the Prime Minister often says, if the left is mad at us and the right is mad at us, maybe we are doing the right thing.

It is a tough job to herd cats. It is a tough job to make this place work because it is a feeling. We have a set of rules and practices, but the Speaker also has the ability to understand the House organically. If anything, I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that at times you have gone too far in urging a member to retract a statement and in trying to give somebody an opening to back away from something they have done to transgress the rules. However, I think that every time you have done it, you have done it out of respect for the House and what the House is all about.

This is a fight between the Bloc and the government in this particular case. We do not expect the Speaker to fix that fight. All the Speaker can do is referee and manage. We do not expect him to solve those problems. We set the rules. This Chamber sets the rules. This country sets the rules in the Chamber. It is not for the Speaker to do.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I hope there will be opportunities over the next few years to debate how the House might evolve and how the rules of the House and the operations might evolve.

I profess to have not much but a little experience in this area. I want to express my personal support and my absolute confidence in you, Mr. Speaker. I am very sorry we are even having to debate this motion today.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting to come to the House this afternoon. I was busy in my office in the Confederation Building, but I had the television on—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to know whether the member is on questions and comments or debate.

[The Speaker]

Questions and comments.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

I am on questions and comments. Mr. Speaker, I heard the debate and I have come here to make a comment.

First let me say that the House has to know I consider myself to be a good friend of the Speaker. He and I lived together for five years. He and I and others shared a condominium here in Ottawa. I know the gentleman who occupies the chair. I respect him. I consider him a personal friend. When he was first elected as Speaker in 1993 I voted for him. I voted for him again in 1997. I know this man. I know that he is fair. I respect him. I know he does his job as well as anyone.

As a member of the House and as a friend, have I always agreed with every decision that he has made? No. I think that my good friend the Speaker sometimes is too soft on all of us and sometimes I would expect him to be a little tougher.

He is a good referee. He is a good umpire. I find it very strange that in this motion of censure the word “partiality” would be used, that the good Speaker would be accused of partiality. There is not a drop of partiality in his blood.

What I find interesting is that the Speaker allowed 410 motions with respect to the clarity bill. What does that suggest, hon. members? That suggests to me that the Speaker bent over absolutely backward to allow every possible motion, every possible amendment to allow the Bloc in this particular case, the opposition, the mover to—

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I would like to go on hearing the member but I am going to give the floor to the hon. member for Winnipeg South in response to a comment.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my comment very short. I believe the Bloc member has a question also.

Certainly I underscore everything that the member just said. In fact it was the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia who first introduced me to the Speaker and acted as a reference really when I was trying to sort out who would be the person we might choose as Speaker. It was an absolutely open vote. I have always respected the choice that I made.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find very disturbing in the comments by the member, with whom I worked and for whom I have a lot of respect, is that he did not address the issue.

I know he is intelligent enough to know there is a problem, but he chose not to address it, and I find this disturbing. At issue is the changing nature of the relationship between the members and the legislative counsel. This is the issue. This is a change we were not advised of.

This change may well have been made in good faith, but we have every right to consider it as a breach of our privileges as MPs. We have the right to expect, when dealing with a legislative counsel regarding a private member's bill, or when working on amendments in a committee, that he will be the only one privy to the amendment until it is published in the order paper.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The member is entitled to know and entitled to raise a question of privilege and expect the House to rule on it. That is a fact. But in not being satisfied with the answer, is this what we will see from the Bloc all the time? If one loses, loses and loses, is the next arrow out of the quiver an effort to try to burn the Speaker? I do not understand it. The problem we need to solve is one which we need to solve, not the Speaker.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many interesting points have been made by members. I would ask the member to consider whether or not this place should be operated in a sense of rigidity and that all things should be applied to the full extent and letter of all the rules and procedures of this place, or whether or not a certain discretion should be used given that the objective is that the House should be working. I think we all know the old saying about being careful of what you ask for because you may very well get it.

I am concerned as a backbencher that if we continue to abuse the privileges and the rights we have in this place what will happen is that we will be forced to undertake certain reforms within this place which in fact will tighten the rules even further and further erode the privileges, rights and opportunities that ordinary members of parliament have in this place.

I just pose to the member whether or not in terms of the ultimate outcome here the discretion and the wisdom of the Chair applied in this case were appropriate and indeed in the best interest of this place.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises some very cogent points. I would suggest to him, though, that the word rigidity is a bit of a loaded word. When points of order and questions of privilege are brought forward to the Chair a precedent or what has happened before is always consulted. We have Beauchesne's referred to in almost every case, both by those who bring forth points and by the Speaker in responding to them and making rulings.

There has to be some stability and some order in the way these things are approached. We cannot sort of have one thing one day and another thing another day like situational justice. There has to be some order and some reason for things that are done.

The member talks about wanting to make sure the House works. The simple answer to that is for whom. We disagree with things that Bloc members have done but they are part of the democratic process and have a right to have the House and the process work for them as well. I think we need to be very fair minded about that.

The member scared me a bit when he said we would be forced to change the rules. It sounds like a bit of a threat. I would say with the government's majority and with some of the things its members have attempted in the last few days, perhaps that would not be a good thing to put on the table during this debate.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very direct question. This motion very specifically challenges the impartiality of the Speaker and accuses the Speaker of being partial in a decision and presumably in other decisions. In this context that means that the Speaker is being accused of being partisan, because nothing occurs here that is not partisan if it is partial.

I would like to ask the member who just spoke if this is what she really means. Does she feel that in supporting this motion she has lost confidence in the Speaker's ability to be impartial and that indeed she is accusing him of being partisan?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member, as he so often does, cut right to the heart of the matter. My simple answer is that I think there are some signals and some discomfort in this debate with the issue of impartiality from time to time. I mentioned that in my remarks.

In my view, Mr. Speaker has not demonstrated a degree of partiality that would demand full censure from the House. That is why I said that although this debate is positive it is probably too narrow at this point to urge members to vote in favour of this motion. I hope that responds to the member's question.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also feel a little chagrined at being asked to rule on my own confidence in the Speaker. I look upon the Speaker as a referee and arbiter of the rules.

I remember quite well that one of the first things I did when I came here in 1993 was to meet the various candidates for Speaker, yourself included. I had an opportunity to query you on an issue that I thought was important. I tried to decide whether or not you would be impartial. You convinced me that was important at that time. I am frank to admit that I gave you my vote. It was a secret ballot so no one would have ever needed to know that, but that is the way I voted.

I have found myself a little frustrated with some of the democratic processes in the House lately. I did not enjoy the process of debate, time allocation and restriction on the committee work on Bill C-20, the clarity bill. I believe there were mistakes made on both sides. There was obstruction going on in the House. I am not sure how I would have responded, if I were on the government side, to that obstruction. I did think that some of the things that were done were hasty and more heavy-handed than they needed to be.

On the processes of the House, in the last little while we have had two major bills where there has been significant opposition pressure brought on the government. We did bring those pressures to bear on Nisga'a to express our concern with the way this new bill had come through. The Bloc did the same thing with Bill C-20. It brought every mechanism that it could to bear to express its vigorous displeasure with that bill.

This, however, does not come down to whether or not the vigorous opposition that can be mounted should somehow be stifled. Neither does this come down to an issue of friendship with the Speaker or personal admiration for the Speaker. To me this comes down to the issue of whether or not these legal counsel, these officers who are there to give us help in crafting and organizing our affairs and to give us advice on making amendments to make sure that they are technically correct, can do their job if there is not the confidence of the members in them. I believe and echo the comments of my colleague who just spoke that this is the central issue we are debating.

I am not a solicitor. I know little of solicitor-client privilege. I am a physician. I know a lot about doctor-patient privilege. I know if I broke that privilege when I was practising and doing my job that I would be censured to a degree where I could not practise. I do not see the difference between solicitor-client privilege and the very sacred privilege between the physician and the patient.

In my view there is one way that I as a physician could release information on my patient, and that was with the patient's permission. It needed to be written and dated. Then I could share the information with the health team, with specialists, with the technicians doing blood tests, with those doing the tests that we ran and with the nurses in the OR. That is the only way I could share that information. If the patient gave me documentary evidence I could send the records to a solicitor, and only then.

I believe that our table counsel need to have the permission directly and specifically of the member for whom they are working before they release that information to the team. It would be very straightforward.

There are times when the team should know every word that is being proposed. There are times when that is not appropriate, where for strategic reasons or for whatever reasons the information should not be shared by the team.

At the heart of this issue is not Bill C-20, not the Nisga'a treaty, and not all the mechanisms we have for expressing our displeasure. At its heart is that very issue. Can legislative counsel function properly if they share every piece of information with the team? My comment is that they cannot.

I feel that legislative counsel will have to withdraw from those duties and keep their oath of office if that is what is expected of them. I would ask that this not just be looked at by the Speaker but by the table officers themselves, by the individuals who direct the affairs of the House. I believe that this ruling needs to be reviewed and revisited. I expect that this will be a healthy review of that specific ruling.

I will be voting my personal confidence in the Speaker tonight when we vote. I do not say that in any way to ingratiate myself with the Speaker, but only because I have found the Speaker to be partial on issues where I expected partiality and impartial where I have expected that to take place. I share those thoughts in sincerity with the Speaker and with the table officer. I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately did not hear the beginning of the speech by the member who spoke before me. I think I heard the last half, with which I agree.

Given this type of a debate, is the role of the Speaker not to ensure some respect for democracy?

Let me explain what I mean. The fact that four cannibals decide to eat a fifth one does not make it democratic. A decision taken by a majority is not necessarily democratic.

Closure used to be an exceptional measure, but now it is the rule. Not one bill gets through this House without closure any more.

I would like the hon. member who just spoke to tell me if he does not think that part of the Speaker's role is to be able to intervene in such a case. I know there is another side to this. I would like to hear his explanation.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for me, what is at stake here is not the Speaker, but the legislative counsel. If the legislative counsel had the privilege to review the circumstances in this case, the rules have to be changed.

I have confidence in the Chair in this instance, but I think that there must be a special relationahip with the legislative counsel.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned a topic which is dear to my heart, which is the solicitor-client privilege between legislative counsel and members of parliament. If legislative counsel are taking orders or taking instructions not only from a member of parliament but also from someone else as to what information must be shared and when and how, that clearly creates a conflict of interest because they would have instructions from two difference sources which have two different interests.

What does that do for him as a member of parliament? How does he feel about his confidence in the working relationship he would then have with legislative counsel and his confidence in the assistance and the quality of advice he is receiving under circumstances where that individual is—

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Macleod.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that does cut to the heart of the issue. It would in fact make me reticent to use legal counsel in the House. It would make me consider carefully going outside the House for legal counsel. I think it would be a shame if our legal counsel withered away, because surely they have the experience, they have the background, they have the abilities to look at all the legislative things in a way that legal counsel normally would not do.

I personally would be very uncomfortable having the two sides reviewing legislation in that way.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.

I want to participate in the debate, having listened to the points raised. Perhaps I will start by responding to the member for Calgary—Nose Hill who, in answer to a question that I posed to her, suggested that somehow I was opposed to reforming the House. I want to repeat my statement for her.

My statement was that the reform would be necessary, to the point where it would add further constraints to the rights and privileges of members. I think that is different from reforming the House to have changes which will make us more productive. The idea is that we are all members of parliament. We enjoy certain rights and privileges. I would like to think that the fullest extent of those rights and privileges could be enjoyed by all members regardless of party.

The point I was trying to make was that we have opportunities to abuse our rights and privileges in this place. We can create literally hundreds of report stage motions. We can grind this place to a halt. We can put notices on the order paper for concurrence in committee reports. Every day when a bill is to come before the House for debate someone can rise on a concurrence motion and take up the time of the House simply to talk about anything that might have been talked about in a committee report. This place could grind to a halt.

Most members probably could think of a valid reason to stand on points of order, questions of privilege or points of information simply to take up a bit of time. It is not in our best interest, obviously. The best interest of all members is to use the time of the House and the resources that are available to us wisely. We are judged as a group on how wisely we use the time of this place.

The motion before the House has to do with a very serious matter. I concur that it is a serious allegation. I concur that something has to be looked at carefully, but I am wondering whether the arguments that have been made should to be put into two different contexts. One is the whole aspect of whether the points being raised by the people who would like to see something done are more directed at the problems they have with the governing party and with the strategies that the government uses in exercising the authority it has been given as opposed to the problems they have with our parliamentary process. I would put that on one side.

The other question is whether we are talking about the rules we will generally follow in regard to the macro picture of how we will deal in terms of the legislative counsel, the Journals branch and all of those resources we have, as opposed to considering this particular case. In this case one has to look at the substance of what was going on, the issue at hand and the strategy.

When I found out that there would be hundreds of motions before parliament at report stage on Bill C-20, it was clear to me, and clear to absolutely everybody, that it was a move of demonstration. It was simply a demonstration to handcuff the House and force it to go through a process.

Had there been 1,000 amendments we would have been here for three full days. It would not have achieved anything, other than keeping all members and people who support this place here. I am not sure that was a good use, so I looked at Beauchesne's. I have not looked at the new book, but I looked at Beauchesne's concerning report stage motions. It said that report stage motions were meant to allow members who were not on the committee an opportunity to have some input and influence on legislation. That is one of the reasons we have report stage motions.

I looked at what we were voting on and asked, how could it be? There were motions dealing with punctuation. There were literally hundreds of motions changing the same thing, adding a word here or there, which had nothing to do with the substance of the bill. I would have thought that maybe the Chair would have had the opportunity to simply say that they were not in the spirit in which report stage motions were intended and rule them out of order.

I just cannot see the whole issue of trying to tie up this place simply for a demonstration because some members will not get their way and the government will get its way. In a majority situation that is what happens.

The outcome of what took place here probably was the right outcome. It was the right outcome, in the best interests of this place and the people of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in my six or seven years as a member of parliament, I have found that your wisdom and insight, trying not to apply rules on a rigid basis but trying to help us to be better parliamentarians, makes us all the better for it, and I will give you my support.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague from Mississauga South and is very simple.

Most members of this House deeply believe in the need for confidentiality in some professional relationships.

I want to ask my colleague this: Does he believe confidentiality is essential to the role we have to play as parliamentarians? Also, does he believe that it is the role of the Speaker to insure that this confidentiality be restored if it can be clearly demonstrated that it has been questionable?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fair question. The member is asking for rigidity within the system that really is not in the best interest of the House.

If the member were going to be straight on this issue, what the Bloc was doing was making a demonstration. It was not a constructive effort to deal with the legislation.

I support the principle of maintaining confidentiality and the spirit in which our rules are set up, but when members, either individually or collectively, abuse the rules of parliament or the privileges of parliament, then I expect the Speaker and those who run this place to make sure that the downside is mitigated as much as possible.