Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, as is the custom, that I am pleased to take part in this debate, but it would be an exaggeration, because a parliamentarian cannot be pleased to take part in this kind of debate.
This is a very serious debate. Personally, not only do I see no reason to have such a debate today, but I also think that the Chair has always acted in a proper and totally impartial manner in this House.
When the member presented this motion to the House, he said that the rights and privileges of all parliamentarians were at stake, as well as democracy itself and the confidence that all members must have in the Speaker.
I agree with the member, probably only to the extent that the motion concerns the rights and privileges of all members, and also the principles of democracy.
First, I would like to talk about political objectivity and impartiality. I do not intend to review the points that are being disputed but rather to stress the impartiality of the procedure and practices followed by our Speaker.
In the ruling you issued in March on the point of order raised by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry regarding motions on amendments relating to Bill C-20, you pointed out that the decision was made, and I quote:
—from a strictly procedural perspective—it [the decision] was made in accordance with the traditions and practices of this House.
As for the question of privilege raised by the deputy House leader of the Bloc Quebecois relating to the issue of confidentiality of the information between the legislative counsels of the House and the members of parliament, the Speaker concluded, and I quote:
—there is no mention of any breach of confidentiality whereby the text of proposed motions of the hon. member or her party has been made known to persons working outside the field of legislative support operations or to other members. Confidential information proprietary to the Bloc Quebecois and several of its members remained completely and absolutely confidential.
Certainly, no one can claim that members of the other political parties received copies of these motions. I still do not know what they contain.
Mr. Speaker, you continued as follows:
Consequently, I am unable to find that this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege or a contempt of the House.
In other words, Speaker's rulings were made with respect for the impartiality of your position and for the rules and practices of the House of Commons of Canada.
Members often disagree on the content of a piece of legislation—there is nothing unusual about that. In fact, there is a whole group of people in our society who do nothing but differ on the interpretations to be given to legislative documents. They are known as lawyers, and that is how they earn their living. There is therefore nothing strange about lawmakers sometimes differing in their interpretations.
We can also disagree on the wording of the Standing Orders. But there can be no disagreement about the impartiality of the Speaker, about the impartiality of the personnel who support the Speaker, and about the impartiality of the Speaker's rulings.
Of course, we have a proud tradition of impartial speakers. Your are such a speaker, and your predecessors were as well. As I am fond of telling my colleagues in the House, I have been around this building for many years. I began working here on October 25, 1966. Many of my colleagues were much younger when I first entered the House.
Even in the days when my duties were very different, I sat in the gallery so as to listen to the debate and the rulings of the Speaker at the time, the late Lucien Lamoureux.
I attended his funeral in Aylmer, Quebec some time ago. He represented the riding of Stormont—Dundas, now so ably represented by the chief government whip.
Later on, I heard the rulings of Speaker Jérôme and of Speaker Sauvé, who later became Her Excellency the Governor General, as well as those of Dr. Lloyd Francis, John Bosley and John Fraser, not to mention yourself, Mr. Speaker. This does not mean I was always in agreement with the Speaker's rulings, far from it, in fact.
Sometimes rulings are brought down, which do not please this side of the House or on the other, but that does not mean the rulings I did not like were partisan and in favour of the other side of the debate in question. That is not the same thing. The differentiation must be made.