House of Commons Hansard #65 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debate.

Topics

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

moved:

That this House resolve that it no longer has confidence in the Speaker, since it is of the opinion that he showed partiality in deciding that the question of privilege raised by the honourable Member for Rimouski-Mitis on Wednesday, March 1, 2000, was unfounded and in rejecting the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, to the detriment of the rights and privileges of all the Members of this House.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois will share his time with the hon. member for Roberval.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some remarks before dealing with the fundamental issue.

I want to thank all opposition parties for making the government understand the necessity of debating this issue, even if today marks the launching of the Liberal Party convention. I want to thank more particularly the PC members who agreed to postpone their opposition day.

I think that, in doing so, they are showing a deep respect for this institution. I cannot really say the same about the behavior of the government party so far.

Here is my second point. Some people claimed that we tried to use this motion as a tactic to delay debate on Bill C-20. This is totally ludicrous; this argument is not valid because we proposed to submit to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs two cases that, according to us, are still in contravention of the procedures of the House.

If the proposal submitted by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis had been accepted, the debate on Bill C-20 would not have been delayed, we would not be debating this matter today, and there would have been no motion. We do not want to point fingers or to make heads roll, we only want to help this Parliament work in a better way and to make all its members feel as equals, because this is what they are and because there are no members more equal than others. This is basically our position.

Let me remind you of the facts. This fight over a bill negating democratic rights in Quebec, Bill C-20, has been very emotional. There was no reason, except the Liberal convention, to ram this bill through the House. And it is because of this that the House is now in this predicament.

Not only has democracy in Quebec been under attack, but even the process has been interfered with. Fanaticism has reached new heights. The quality of debates in this institution and even the very possibility of having debates in this place are stake.

We submitted a substantial number of amendments. Many of them were ruled out, and we did not object. To our great surprise, however, two amendments we had not even submitted were ruled out of order. It is a bit surprising to get a ruling before one's case has be made. We had a hard time understanding what was going on.

This raises the issue of the basic principle of confidentiality in the dealings between members of the House and the legal counsel who are there to serve them. How can the House make a ruling, how can it have knowledge of an amendment we intended to submit but did not? But we did get a ruling. We think this is a serious matter, and that the whole situation should be looked into.

The second item is the 144 or so amendments which we brought forward. After we had tabled them, we were told by House officials: “They are not in order because they contained the word sovereignty.” According to them, this is an ill-defined concept which has nothing to do with Bill C-20, which speaks only of secession. Very well, we said, we will change “sovereignty” to “secession” in all these amendments in order to reflect the advice we have been given.

This we did, and the decision was the same. Now we are beginning to wonder. Either we were badly advised, intentionally or not, but we followed that advice, and this reflects on the quality of the services provided. Or we were properly advised and they did not think we were going to use the word “secession”, and logic had nothing to do with it.

The only logical thing to do, if it can be called logical, was to reject them. Otherwise, there was a risk that Bill C-20 would not go through this week, and what is most important for this government is not so much this bill as the convention of the Liberal Party of Canada. We are well aware that the Prime Minister wants to arrive with the bill in his pocket, not with some scandal floating around. Neither goal was achieved.

This is why we challenged these two decisions and told the Speaker that it was vital that they be reconsidered. We opened the door, as we have always done since our arrival here, because we respect this institution. We will always remember as a fundamental and historical lesson on what a parliament is this maxim used by our anglophone friends “We have to agree on how to disagree”. We totally agree with that.

We are not here—it is hopeless, even if it would be nice—to try to win people over to our side, but rather to represent those who elected us. That is our job. We must use the debate to shed some light on the situation and to see to it that even those who do not agree with us as well as the people in general better understand where we are coming from. I think it is a very democratic way to proceed.

We left a door open in suggesting that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I remind members that this would not have delayed the debate on Bill C-20 and would have corrected the situation with regard to the debate on Bill C-20, but it would have given us a way to see to it that such a situation does not occur ever again.

I still have difficulty understanding why this door was slammed shut after we had opened it. As I said when I moved this motion, I wished I did not have to do such a thing because I have learned, over the years, to work with the Speaker. We have had a good relationship so far. I hope that, despite all that has happened, it will be possible to restore this relationship because the door is still open.

This is not just about you. It is about this institution. It is about our rights. It is about the rights of all members. We cannot accept that the clerks, for example, can make a ruling because they are aware of our intentions because of the amendments we want to propose, whereas this is not the case for ministers. They have their own legislative counsel. We become aware of their amendments when they appear on the Order Paper.

There should not be a treatment for the ministers and a treatment for the other members. That, in my opinion, is fundamental. I am not saying that there was malice or not, but that there is a problem. And when there is a problem, it is our duty to deal with it, and the more so if there is an element of doubt hanging over the institution's impartiality. What we want is to improve the climate of debates.

We know that debates are tinged with emotion, but in spite of all the emotion involved, we must be sure, not at 50%, 60% or 70%, but at 100% that everyone of us here is equal. We must be 100% sure that our mechanisms are good. However, when we see that these mechanisms are not working properly, it is imperative that we correct them. That is what was proposed in the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, and in the point of order raised by my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

In both cases, we were wondering about the reasons why the Bloc members came to feel sure they had been treated differently, without suggesting that is was due to malice. That is something the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could have examined. That could have been decided as soon as Monday.

I will end my remarks on that note and let my colleague, the member for Roberval, complete our representation and explain the situation. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, in all friendship, that we have to settle that question, and that is the question that matters to us. This is what matters to us.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:25 a.m.

The Speaker

The debate will proceed as follows: to start with, there will be 20 minute speeches followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments. As we heard earlier, the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois will be sharing his time with the hon. member for Roberval.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I join the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to thank members of the opposition parties, who accepted this debate, which is of paramount importance to us, and made it possible.

The questions I would like to ask at this time are: why is there a parliament and why are we here today? Why have we been elected to this parliament?

Parliament was not created to be used by the government or the monarch but to serve the people. Parliament is much more ancient than democracy; at the time of the monarchy, it was decided to bring together elected representatives of the people to act as a check and balance, give advice and tell the king “We like this, but we do not like that”. The voice of the people could be heard through parliament.

Parliament was never meant to be used by the king, the monarchy or the government. Parliament's role is not to support the government. Its role is to express ideas and to serve as a check and balance to the huge powers of the executive. This is why ministers and the Prime Minister have to answer questions by the elected representatives of the people every day. It is a normal process. We call it democracy, and this is what gives it strength.

The government, before making important decisions, must submit to a public debate and face all members of parliament. This process allows us to improve legislation; it is the fundamental difference between a monarchy or a dictatorship, where decisions are taken and imposed from the top down, and a democracy, where the government does not have all of the power. Of course, it does have the power to manage the affairs of the country, but this power is subject to public debate.

For the government, there is a political price to pay when decisions are taken. This is what democracy is all about. This is what we are doing here. I hope that members understand that they have an important responsibility to express views that differ from the ones held by the government, since government members are bound by the principle of cabinet solidarity.

Opposition members are here to express points of view. This is why society has been able to solve problems without fighting. There is no more bickering, no more war; we do not fight any more, we debate. We have found a civilized way of expressing points of view.

It is all very well for those who have the majority to rule, but they will have to pay a political price for their actions. If those actions are not good, then parliament can debate them. It alerts the population. The media are an integral part of the democratic process and they ensure that our decisions, our debates are made known to the public. This forces the government to improve its legislation. It restricts the scope of the government's activity. It does not give the government all the power because parliament acts as a check and balance.

There are three principles underlying parliament. The first is that parliament is totally independent from the executive. Parliament is where the people are heard. Parliament should not have to serve the executive. Parliament is not the servant of the executive; it is rather a check and balance to the executive. The second principle is that the Speaker has to be neutral.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you this sincerely. I consider that you have always made very high quality rulings in this House. I wanted to say this to you during this debate. The Chair must maintain this neutrality at all cost because the Speaker is the one who protects me. He is the one I called upon this morning, asking “Does our presence here means something or not? Just because we are separatists, does that mean we do not have the right to speak?” It is up to the Speaker to protect me, give me the right to speak, allow me to put questions to the government and make my point of view known. You have always done this admirably.

The third principle is the one of confidentiality regarding everything going on here. Every political party has the right to work in full confidentiality, to avail itself of the services of the employees of the House, who serve us admirably. We call upon the Clerk, we call upon the Sergeant-at-Arms, we call upon the whole staff that works here, and we always get impeccable service. We are entitled to such service.

Those with a long career in parliament know that their first duty is to set aside their political opinions and be as generous with a separatist—even though we are in the federal parliament—as with a government member. They have always done so admirably.

But a problem has occurred. There has been a breach of the principle of confidentiality and openness with respect to a political party, in doing its job; as a result of administrative measures taken in the past, and to which we subscribed in good faith, the confidentiality of the services of the legislative counsel who is here to serve members, be they members of the Bloc, Conservatives, members of the Reform Party, New Democrats or even Liberals, has come under question.

The work of the legislative counsel must be absolutely non-partisan, and entirely confidential. He is a person who works selflessly to allow members to put their point of view across, draft a bill, or draft amendments. All this is in the realm of political strategy, it is a sensitive issue, it is hard to do. It is a sensitive issue because the legislative counsel must abstain from expressing his own opinion. He has to be an expert at the service of MPs of all political stripes, and that is hard to do.

The way the work is organized has, however, resulted in a situation where their proximity with the clerks of the House of Commons, and the fact that the computer, a new working tool, now allows people to access anything that is being worked on, has led to certain elements of the Bloc Quebecois strategy—and it could just as easily have been the Reform, the Conservatives or the NDP—being used in good faith by someone wishing to expedite decision-making on whether to accept or reject amendments. This is what the Speaker has to do, and a number of people are involved in it.

What I wish to say is this. Unfortunately, a problem arose. It has now been realized that this close proximity means that confidentiality is no longer assured. One of the basic principles of parliament is right of access—and I know that the Liberal members across the floor are completely in agreement with me—to non-partisan technical assistance.

This is why I believe you need to reconsider the ruling that was made, perhaps a little too hastily, or perhaps without all aspects being presented. I would ask you to reconsider this decision, because it is fundamental and it concerns one of the principles of parliament.

Everybody will come away from this motion with their head a little higher if you make one of the following decisions.

The first would be to re-establish the matter of confidentiality by changing our current procedure, which no longer ensures confidentiality for us.

The second would be to provide resources directly to the parties to enable them to have their own legislative counsels to ensure their data will not be disclosed again. Otherwise, we will have to assume that confidentiality is no longer valued by parliament, and I know that this is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to propose the withdrawal of this motion or to vote against it if you honestly agreed to give the principle of confidentiality its full due. Administrative changes are required: either the parties must be given their own legislative advisors or this matter must be put before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for its consideration and recommendations.

This is what we are asking you, it is the aim of the motion. I am sure that, in your usual wisdom, you will consider our remarks to be extremely serious and intended to serve parliament and nothing else.

In concluding, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the word “Beauharnois—Salaberry the following:

“on Friday, March 3, 2000,”

This is simply to make it clear that the matter was raised then. I consider it important to add it. It does not change the substance.

I would ask you to consider our request with your usual open-mindedness and you will have our full support. But it seems to us something must be done to ensure confidentiality.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

The Speaker

The amendment is in order.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

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.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

That is not what the problem is.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Some hon. members are saying that is not the problem, or the issue.

Yes it is, actually, because what we have before us today is a motion of non-confidence. This is not a debate about whether members ought to have additional privileges, whether there should be legislative counsels for each party. That is not what we are debating today. It ought to be, but it is not. What we have before us is a motion of non-confidence in our Speaker. That is what we are debating.

The duties of the Speaker of this House date back to the creation of the institution. We have taken our inspiration from the British tradition, dating back to at least 1376. At that time, the Speaker of the House of Commons was the spokesperson for the House to the Crown, as is our Speaker today.

A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, representatives of the various political parties accompanied you in presenting the engrossed Speech from the Throne to Her Excellency. This presentation of the throne speech is a highly symbolic gesture, and one which lets us know that you are indeed still the representative of this House to Her Majesty, and in the Canadian context, to Her Excellency the Governor General.

Upon taking up your post, you stated in this House that you were its servant, not its boss. That is true. You have powers that were vested in you by us all. You have powers that we have given you.

Moreover, our parliamentary traditions, in recent years at least, have changed the procedure for electing the Speaker of the House, precisely to increase the confidence that we all have in the Chair. Mr. Speaker, you were elected twice by your peers in this House, by secret ballot.

You are not the Speaker of the government, you are not the Speaker of the Liberal Party, nor are you the Speaker of the Reform Party or that of the Bloc Quebecois. You are the Speaker of us all. We all chose you. This is my position in this debate and I hope that I am reflecting the views of all those who sit here and who, after careful consideration, may decide to give you their unanimous support later on today.

Perhaps additional services could be provided to parliamentarians. Perhaps we, in this House, could decide to organize the legislative services differently, perhaps not. These are all important issues—

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Administrative issues.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

—administrative issues, as the chief government whip rightly pointed out. We could also change the rules of the House. But, of course, the Speaker will never change our rules. He interprets them, he is our servant. It is up to us to change the rules and to ask the Chair to administer them for us. This is how things must work in a parliament.

As we speak, a House committee is considering changes to the rules. This was precipitated somewhat by the hundreds of amendments that were brought forward at report stage but, at the same time, the committee is considering all kinds of possible changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. There is also the Board of Internal Economy, on which I and the chief government whip sit, under Your Honour's chairmanship, as do members of other political parties.

If we want to, we have the necessary tools to increase services to members if there are deficiencies in that area. The members opposite maintain there is some kind of lawyer-client relationship with the legislative counsel. Nowhere is this written. We could very well decide that it will be so in the future, not retroactively, but it would be possible for each party to have its own legislative counsel or it own legislative services, which would then be assessed by someone acting on behalf of the Chair. If that is what we decide to do in the future, fine. I am prepared to join this consensus or at least to debate the issue at the Board of Internal Economy and to change the rules if necessary.

But the Speaker of the House should not be blamed for any perceived deficiency in our services. I am not even sure a deficiency does exist. At any rate, any service we do not have here in parliament was certainly not taken away by the Speaker. That is for sure.

You know full well, Mr. Speaker, that at the start of your mandate we, those of us sitting on the Board of Internal Economy, tightened up the services available to members. We did away with some, but, once again, it was not you who took them away; it was I, he, the others on the board representing our various caucuses.

You chair the meetings, you seek consensus and, of course, you and your staff, who are highly qualified and who work faithfully for us, recently day and night, help put in place the services available to all members, as voted on by us all together. I have a hard time understanding, in fact I do not understand at all, why discrepancies at that level could be considered your responsibility.

To summarize very briefly, I think, Mr. Speaker, and it is my firm conviction that, first, your rulings are fair. I am convinced you are not involved in partisan politics. You are fair and therefore not partisan.

What some of our colleagues are after does not involve confidence or non-confidence with respect to you, Mr. Speaker. If members wish to refer this matter to a committee of the House, to the Board of Internal Economy or an ad hoc committee comprising the leaders, I would willingly sit with my colleagues.

In the meantime, I would ask, at the end of today, that one of them rise and, in a symbolic act, seek unanimous consent to withdraw this motion. In according you this unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, we will be in a way expressing our full confidence in you, something I have always had in you and which I hope we all have both in you and in the manner in which you acquit yourself of your duties.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:55 a.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my hon. colleague the government House leader to this issue.

The Reform Party of Canada as Her Majesty's official opposition feels that this particular issue is one of the most important issues that can ever be brought before this Chamber. We have already heard a number of members refer to the need for the impartiality of the Chair. Debating this issue is of supreme importance. The Speaker of this place is tasked with the job of upholding the rights and privileges of each and every member equally.

In debating this issue among Reform Party members it soon became apparent that the only way to address this was to have a free vote. If there was ever a reason to have a free vote on an issue, this one would be it, rather than taking a caucus position as we often do when we debate other issues, because of the importance that we have placed upon the Speaker's position.

The Speaker is tasked with upholding the rights and privileges of each and every one of us. Each and every one of us should be called upon to grapple with his or her conscience, with his or her projection of whether you, Mr. Speaker, have always acted in an impartial manner over the past number of years. We came to the conclusion that each member would have to make that choice for himself or herself.

I would ask the government House leader if it is his understanding that the Liberal members in this Chamber will be doing likewise.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, the issue of internal party discipline is very interesting. I have no idea what it has to do with the debate at hand.

We could exchange with members across the way which party kicked out more members than the other party. It could go on for a long time. There are remnants of that scattered all over the back row on that side of the House. I do not know what that would accomplish. I recognize the hon. member is the whip for his party but he is asking me a question for a whip. I am not the whip but perhaps he will participate in the debate later.

The most important thing for us to remember is twofold. First let us not trivialize this in that manner. I do not think we should do that. Second, we should all remember that there was a free vote. There were several. In 1993 the votes were so free that we had a rather curious situation of a tie. After several votes, and then a subsequent vote, each one as free as the previous, it resulted in the excellent choice of you, Mr. Speaker, to hold the high office which you now hold.

Again, in 1997, not only were the votes free but they were secret. We did not even know who was first or second after we voted. The only thing we knew was who was last because that person was eliminated from the ballot. Through all these votes we arrived at the choice of Speaker, a choice of which I am personally very proud. I hope that I am saying what all of us, or nearly all of us if all of us is not achievable later today, will also say.

That is the important issue in this debate today. We are not discussing what whip is bigger than the other whip. We are discussing whether or not we have confidence in the Speaker, and I do.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Bloc

René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. government House leader to explain what he means by his remarks.

What we are seeking today is not additional services from the House legislative counsel or clerks. We called for changes because there arose a situation which gives us cause to believe that there has been a breach of the confidentiality we expect. Information was passed from the legislative counsel to the clerk. In his ruling, the Speaker tells us that this should be seen as a normal state of affairs, something to which we were not accustomed before because it was not the situation then.

The Speaker having told us this, we no longer trust the team with whom we are dealing because there has been a loss of the confidentiality we need. It is a fact that amendments we had discussed only with legislative counsel were rejected, meaning that this information—we clearly had proof—had been passed on to a clerk. So this is one occasion on which we have good reason to lose faith in the existing system.

Furthermore, if, pursuant to the ruling of the Speaker, it is a normal state of affairs that the clerks should work with the legislative counsel within the allowed framework, the same situation occurred when we were advised to use the word secession instead of sovereignty. Which we did. If the legislative counsel works jointly with the clerk, they should have been in agreement. We did what we were told and, at the end of the day, over one hundred of our amendments were turned down, just because we did what we were asked to do.

We believe that sometimes the clerk works in co-operation with the legislative counsel, and other times, he does not seem to do so. Where are the confidentiality and the trust we are entitled to? This is why we introduced a non-confidence motion. I would ask the clerk—we are not asking for the Speaker's head—to make sure this does not happen again. We have nothing against the current Speaker, but we are opposed to situations that result in our being unable to work in total confidence.

If the government House leader is willing to change his mind on this, I will point out to him that we had already suggested that this motion be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for discussion. If this had been accepted, we would not be having this debate today. But it was turned down.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, it takes some twisted logic to reach the conclusions I have just heard from the hon. member across the floor. The non-confidence reads as follows:

That this House resolve that it no longer has confidence in its Speaker, since it is of the opinion that he showed partiality—

This is what is in the non-confidence motion. If it were the type of motion the hon. member has described, then it would not be a non-confidence motion, but something else again. Coming from the members, a motion could be formulated along these lines “That this House change the organization of its legislative counsel; or that this House change the method by which legislative counsel interacts with the clerk” or some such thing.

This is an interesting debate, but it has no connection with the non-confidence motion. That is why I am saying that, at the end of the day, this non-confidence motion might be withdrawn, because it is the wrong approach.

If the objective is what the hon. member has just described to us, I hope he and his colleagues will ask the House to withdraw it. This gesture of unanimity—for it will require unanimous consent to do so—will in itself express the confidence we have in you.

Second, the hon. member's response to another part of the question is “It is not a debate about getting extra resources”. Well now, I am quoting the hon. member for Roberval, who was speaking about getting the necessary resources; I quickly jotted down what he was saying. That may not have been the purpose of the motion as moved by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, but the member who shared his speaking time referred to this as one of the reasons why this non-confidence motion was before us.

I am therefore asking the hon. member to look later on at today's Hansard to see what his own colleagues had to say, because that is exactly what this is all about.

I will be affirming my confidence in you later on today, Mr. Speaker.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, normally when I rise to my feet I say it is a pleasure to address the House. While it is a privilege today it is not particularly a pleasure that we have to debate this motion, but debate it we must at this time. Before I start I would like to mention that I am splitting my time with the member for St. Albert.

So far the speakers I have heard have skirted the real issue we are debating today. I do not really believe that the members did not like your ruling because of the confidentiality issue that is in the motion. I do not think that is it at all, because we dealt with the same issue back in the previous parliament when the member for Yorkton—Melville brought forward almost an identical concern of confidentiality of legislative council. He brought it to the attention of the House at some length in a detailed presentation to the Speaker. At that time there was a ruling on that, and I did not see any of the Bloc members rising up in arms over it. You dealt with it, Mr. Speaker, gave it a ruling and we moved on.

I still believe we need to address the issue of confidentiality. I believe we need a change in the standing orders but that can be done and should be done in committee. It should be brought back for all of us to agree to, and I think we can do that readily.

It is not really about the confidentiality issue. It is not because the clerks and the staff have not done their jobs properly. In my opinion they have done what they have been doing as long as I have been here, since 1993 certainly. They have consistently served the House with incredible professionalism. I say that as someone who came here in 1993, not knowing what to expect but has been consistently pleased and honoured to be able to work with the clerks and the staff of this place. It is not about them in my opinion at all.

It is not because question period has become unruly and the ministers have quit giving answers or anything like that, although that is true. It is not about the unruliness of the place at all.

I would argue we are here because parliament is becoming increasingly dysfunctional and increasingly irrelevant because of the actions of the government. That is what this is about. No one from the Bloc has mentioned it, but this comes the day after Bill C-20 was pushed through the House in what I think was a very undemocratic manoeuvre by the government. That is what we are talking about today. This is a response to the frustration felt by opposition parties in this place. I believe, although I do not have inside knowledge of their meetings, that is what this is all about.

To summarize just briefly, I believe there are three things that make this place tick. The first is that partly we run this place based on the rules. We have rule books. We have Beauchesne's, the standing orders and the new book of Canadian parliamentary rules put together by our clerks. In part it is the rules that make this place work. We respect the rules. We interpret the rules. It is part of what makes the House of Commons work well.

Second, this place is built on goodwill and honourable agreements between men and women of this place. That is why, Mr. Speaker, you consistently rule when someone stands in their place and says something that you take them at their word, as you have to, as you must, as we all must. That is the only way the place functions.

We function on the honour system. We come together, whether it be in this place or in your chambers or in another room, and come to an agreement on how we are going to proceed. All the rules in the world cannot cover all the eventualities so we work together as honourable people should. That is the second thing we do and have to do.

The third thing, and the reason we are in this debate today, is that the government has an obligation to govern. It has been elected to do that, and I give it that. It also has an obligation to respect the rights and minority rights of the smaller opposition parties in the House of Commons. It has consistently failed to do that. It is out of that frustration that this motion is before us today.

I could speak at great length on this issue, but in the short time available to me I will go to the immediate past history. I think of last fall during the debate on the Nisga'a agreement where time allocation was brought in at every stage, restricting our ability and the rights of the opposition parties to debate and bring their concerns forward on one of the most important agreements in Canadian history.

To get back to the honourable agreement idea, we were finally able to push the government to agree to have the committee travel. It was not going to travel at all. When we finally got out in the field we found out that the witnesses we expected at those committees were all flown in from hundreds of miles away to stack the committee to make sure that opposition voices and points of view were not heard. That started to build the frustration.

We are at a record setting level of time allocation rage that this government is on. By far it exceeds what happened in the Brian Mulroney government. It has been 63 times that we have had either time allocation or closure motions since the government took office just over five years ago. It was 66 times in the entire 10 years that the Tories held office. This motion is before us today in response to the frustration of not letting us debate this stuff. That is a shame because the target in my opinion is totally wrong.

I think of the two most important bills that the government has tabled this year, Bill C-20 and Bill C-23. They are both important bills whether or not we agree with them. I happened to agree with Bill C-20 and voted in favour of it. Even when we try to agree with the government and work with it to advance a piece of legislation, we still say let us hear the opposition points of view. Let us bring in a good array of witnesses. Let us travel and talk to the different provincial governments on what one might argue is the most important act this parliament has ever passed on the division or separation of another province.

What happens? The government consistently brings in closure here. It brings in closure in committee. It does not allow the committee to travel. It restricts the witness list. At every stage it sticks us in the eye with a burnt stick and says “You have to do it our way. We have all of the power because we have the majority”. The frustration level continues to build because of that.

How can an opposition party do its job when at every stage, whether in this place or in a supposedly independent committee, the government uses its majority to tell the minority parties that have opposition views or contrary views that not only will they not carry the day, which is one thing, but that it will not even listen to them. That frustration level is exactly why we are debating this motion today, Mr. Speaker. It is not about you, as far as I am concerned. I am going to vote against this motion, gladly. It is not about you doing your job, Mr. Speaker. It is a response. This is the climactic moment of a series of arrogant Liberal government moves which have restricted the ability of opposition parties to do their work. It is because of that, sadly, that we are here today.

I do not agree with the motion and I wish we were not debating it, but I know full well what it is about, and no one should kid themselves. It is not about you, Mr. Speaker. It is not about your consistency in the job. It is not about that at all. It is in absolute hand-wringing frustration of trying to deal with this government.

What happens in committees? Forty per cent of the committee reports that are supposedly drafted in committee are released to the press before they come to the House. We have been on our feet many times about that. We may as well read the whole budget in the press before it comes to the House. Legislation is given to other people before it comes to the House.

Time and again we see the House, this parliament, treated as a second-rate institution instead of the first-rate institution it should be. Instead of treating MPs with dignity and the House with dignity, the government asks if it can get a media spin out of something. Can it force something through with its majority? It is a shame.

The other bill is Bill C-23. It is another important bill, whether we agree with it or oppose it. Why has the government restricted the debate? Why has it restricted the witnesses? Why has it refused to travel? Why? Because it does not tolerate opposition views.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that saying of people who have died in defence of the theory “I may not agree with your point of view, but I will die defending the right for you to make it”. That is what is wrong with this place. It is not you, Mr. Speaker. It is not the staff. It is not the legislative counsel. It is a government that has consistently refused to listen to other points of view and give the minority parties, who represent over 50% of Canadians, the chance to make those points known.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague from the Reform Party, who comes from an area of the country where I grew up. I also do not believe this is about you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I plan to defeat the motion. I was going to defeat it the second it was brought forward.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley mentioned the frustration that we feel because of what the government is doing. He is a member of the official opposition. Imagine how he would feel being a member of the fourth party in the House of Commons, trying to get issues across.

One of the most eloquent speakers in the history of the country debated Bill C-20, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I believe he was speaking on behalf of all Canadians in wanting that debate to be extended. There are many people who have expert opinions and very wise opinions on Bill C-20, but of course they were not allowed to speak to it.

The member also knows that it is not just this government. From 1984 to 1993 we watched the Conservative government ram through legislation like the GST, the most hated tax the country ever saw. It was rammed through the House and then former prime minister Brian Mulroney stacked the Senate with his friends. John Buchanan from Nova Scotia was one of those appointed to the Senate. His whole purpose was to say yes to the GST.

The frustration we feel in opposition is quite evident, but the government backbenchers must be awfully frustrated as well. Can the hon. member shed some light on how backbenchers must feel when the government is controlled by the Prime Minister's office and not necessarily parliamentarians when legislation is brought forward? They do not get a chance to debate the legislation as well.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will comment on that by citing two recent examples which frustrated this side of the House but must have driven that side of the House nuts. The two examples I would bring are the following.

The first is a motion brought forward by the government House leader, Motion No. 8, which sat on the order paper for a day or two before, by all reports, about 40 Liberal backbenchers said that the motion would take away the rights of not only the opposition parties, but also the rights of government members on the Liberal side to even bring amendments to bills.

If Motion No. 8 had passed—and, thankfully, it was withdrawn under pressure from all sides of the House and the government's own backbench—it would have allowed every member of parliament to introduce one amendment. Imagine if the House leader of the NDP had been allowed to bring forward one amendment to Bill C-20. He was successful in having two amendments passed; not just brought forward, but actually passed to improve the bill. If Motion No. 8 had been brought forward it would have curtailed the rights of every single member of parliament except those in cabinet. Members of the cabinet would have had infinite ability to amend at will. That is the first example.

The other example that I bring forward is a current problem, which has been in the newspapers for the last week or so, which has to do with the immigration committee. There are three issues.

The committee was dealing with a minority report on changes to the immigration system. Members passed a motion in the committee stating that the report would be considered in public. That motion was passed by members of the committee.

What happened? Immediately the chair moved that the committee proceed in camera and refused to have a vote on whether to proceed in camera. Even though a motion had been passed that it be a public debate, the committee proceeded in camera to consider the report.

As well, documents were given to us from the immigration department detailing an entirely new immigration act and how it would be presented to the House, including information that the minister would sign off on the new bill on March 7, when the committee had not even tabled its report or recommendations. What happened? The committee was treated with complete disdain by the government. The government completely ignored the input of members of parliament on that committee.

We now have the bill in our hands. It is not a draft bill. The deal is done. The die is cast. The committee was treated with absolute disdain by the government, which had already signed off on the bill. The government ignored the wishes of the committee, proceeded in camera when it voted to proceed in public, and has now run roughshod over the rights of not only members on this side of the House but also on that side of the House.

Those are just two examples of how the backbenchers on that side must feel about the way they are treated by the frontbench.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

The Speaker

Before I recognize the next member to speak in this debate I want the House to know that I am giving all possible latitude to this particular motion. However, I think that once in a while members should at least refer to the issue we are talking about today. I am going to give all of you all kinds of room, but I would like you to bring it back a bit so that we can tie it together. As you know, because you have all read the motion, this is about confidence in the Speaker.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not a gala day for the House in that we are debating this particular motion. You have just commented on the fact that the debate seems to be rambling on to other areas, and you have heard what the opposition had to say with respect to the frustration we have felt because of the actions of the government, the actions of the crown, which has manifested itself in an expression of non-confidence in you. For that I feel that this House is not being well served by the motion. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I will vote against the motion.

I looked at the question of privilege raised by the member for Rimouski—Mitis. I did not find that her privileges had been violated. We are privileged people as members of parliament. We have been given and have wrestled from the crown the right of free speech and the right to be protected from the crown, and we ask you, as the Speaker, to uphold these rights.

When I looked at the question of privilege that was raised by the member, I did not find that she had brought forth the fact that the crown, the government, had infringed upon her freedom of speech, nor denied her some of the rights which we have wrestled from the crown over the many, many years since the Magna Carta was first signed in the United Kingdom.

As we know, that was the first time that power was wrestled from the monarchy, who had to consult the barons and the aristocracy. Since that time it has evolved to the common people which the government has to consult to obtain their concurrence before anything can be done.

We have a large body of privilege which protects us. Through the evolution of the parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom we have come to have a Speaker who speaks on our behalf. That is why the person is called the Speaker.

I would like to quote from Marleau and Montpetit, at page 256, concerning the historical perspective of the Speaker of the House. It states:

The year 1642 marked the end of the Crown's influence over the Speaker, when Charles I, accompanied by an armed escort, crossed the Bar of the House, sat in the Speaker's chair and demanded the surrender of five parliamentary leaders on a charge of treason. Falling to his knees, Speaker William Lenthall replied with these now famous words which have since defined the Speaker's role in relation to the House and the Crown:

May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here; and I humbly beg Your Majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this to what Your Majesty is pleased to demand of me.

Unfortunately, Marleau and Montpetit continue to say:

While Speaker Lenthall's words heralded the end of the Crown's influence over the Speakership, it was the beginning of the government's authority over the Chair.

That is an unfortunate statement because the government should never have authority over the Chair in this House. There have been times when we have been frustrated by rulings of the Chair, but the important thing is that the rulings be fair and that they abide by the rights and privileges that we have wrestled in the past from the crown.

I would ask the hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois before they vote this evening to examine the question of privilege raised by their member and the Speaker's ruling. I know of their frustration against the government, but I do not expect them to take their frustration out on you, Mr. Speaker, because you are there to uphold our rights, and provided you uphold our rights, you are doing your job. I would beseech members of the Bloc Quebecois to examine the privilege which they felt had been impinged upon, to look at your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and find, in the words of this motion, that you did indeed make the proper decision.

Mr. Speaker, you have a responsibility every day to uphold our rights. I can think of a time when I rose in the House in the last parliament to deal with an issue concerning an income tax bill. In 1993, at the beginning of the 35th Parliament, we changed the rules to allow bills to be sent committee before second reading, the concept being that the principle of the bill could therefore be debated at committee. As we know, second reading is to deal with the principle of the bill. Therefore, if the bill was sent to committee before second reading we could debate the principle of it. However, an income tax bill is dealt with first by a ways and means motion, which draws, in essence, a circle around the bill. Therefore, it cannot be debated in principle at committee because if it goes outside the ways and means motion it is illegal. I guess that would be the word. The Chair ruled that it was perfectly legitimate for it to go to committee before second reading. I found that offensive because I felt that the government had won; the Speaker had sided with the government.

The rights that we have as individual members have to be upheld by you, Mr. Speaker, and if there were ever any doubt in your mind, you must err in favour of the individual member.

I remember the words of our very competent clerk who spoke to me one time and said that in this country, with the Westminster style, we have government in parliament and we have Her Majesty's government sitting in the front bench, the Privy Council, the cabinet. They are also members of this House and have the responsibility of representing the crown in the House. We have seen how they have used their authority to put motions on the order paper that were flagrant violations of the rights of the House. We had one earlier this morning but fortunately they withdrew it.

It is rhetorical and hypothetical to say how the Speaker will rule, but I would hope that whatever the decision, the first priority of the Speaker is to uphold the rights of the individual member against the representatives of the crown who sit on the front benches over there.

As members know, we have won these rights at great cost. I may be wrong in my date, but I think it was in 1392 that one Speaker in Westminster literally lost his head because he stood up and defended the rights of free speech by individual members in the House of Commons.

I beg the members of the Bloc to reconsider their position on the motion. I do not feel it is fair that they have expressed their frustrations against the crown in a motion of non-confidence against you, Mr. Speaker. That is patently unfair because you, Mr. Speaker, are here to uphold our rights against the crown, and in this particular motion I believe you ruled in an appropriate fashion.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I do not want to make light of this because this is an important debate, but I for one am very happy that they stopped cutting off the Speakers' heads.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the motion that is before the House and to make an argument as to why I think the motion should not only be opposed but why it is inappropriate.

It is obvious that there is a disagreement between the movers of the motion and the Chair and this is not unusual in parliamentary life. Mr. Speaker may recall that I have had the odd disagreement with the Chair myself over the years, both with the current occupant of the Chair and previous occupants of the Chair. I recall finding myself very disagreed with, shall we say, by Speaker Fraser at a time when I urged him to intervene to prevent time allocation on a motion having to do with free trade. He took a different view of what his responsibilities and capabilities were under the rules at that time. That was a ruling which very much favoured the government.

The fact is that what I had urged the Speaker to do on that occasion, if it had been done, would have frustrated the will of the government. However, the Speaker made a decision on the basis of what he thought were the rules, the precedents and the responsibilities of the Chair which had the byproduct of being favourable to the government. I do not believe the decision was made with the intention of being favourable to the government, but all decisions taken by the Chair have a byproduct. They either suit person A's strategy or person B's strategy. They suit the strategy of the government, of a particular opposition party or whatever and that cannot be avoided.

To suggest that because a particular ruling favours one party over another or one side of the House over the other and that is in itself prima facie evidence of partiality, is to either misunderstand the notion of impartiality or trying to make an entirely different sort of political point in the guise of challenging the impartiality of the Chair.

I think the motion is ill-advised. These motions should occur rarely and they do occur rarely. It is very rare indeed that there is an authentic feeling of the Chair having acted in a way that is not impartial and that would fully justify such a motion. There have been occasions in the past but they have been very rare, and I think they should be rarer still; that is to say, I think we would have been better off without this motion.

A point has been made and it is worthy of discussion. What we have before us is in some respects not just a particular strategy of a particular political party on this side of the House, but I think it is fair to say that what we have here is a manifestation of a growing frustration in the House with the way things have operated around here for the last little while.

The opposition House leader spoke at some length, almost to the point of having to be brought to relevance by the Chair, about many of the things that have frustrated the opposition in this parliament. However, they are relevant to explaining for the sake of the Chair why it is that this motion is before the House. In that sense there is some relevance because we do seem to be developing a parliamentary culture in which we can no longer delay the passage of legislation by debating legislation.

Delay has an important political function. Delay has the important political function of getting in the way of a government that may want to be doing something so fast that the public does not catch on to what it is doing until it is over. Getting in the way of the government may have the legitimate political function of getting in the way of a government that wants something to happen in a way that does not permit those in a civil society who are opposed to what it is doing, to have their say before the bill is passed either before committee or in all the other various ways that people find to make their views known.

Delay is a very important function of what it is that opposition parties do. At a previous time, when there was much more opportunity to delay by debate, it was a bit of parliamentary chicken being played with public opinion: Was opposition members holding up the thing too long? Was it finally time for them to shut up and let the thing go or did the opposition have a point, and should it continue to be debated in the hope that the government will change its mind?

Both opposition and government had to gauge public opinion. The opposition might have said that it had its say on it and that it should let it go, or the government might have said, no, it needed to let the opposition keep talking because a lot of people out there were really upset and a full airing of the issue was needed. We do not have that any more. We do not have the game of what I refer to as parliamentary chicken with public opinion.

We have developed a parliamentary culture where if something is really important we have time allocation right away; by right away, I mean within two or three days. A couple of examples come to mind because frankly this has not been a parliament in which we have had a lot of really significant legislation. It has been kind of parliamentary light. We have had changes to the Canada pension plan, Bill C-20 and a couple of other significant pieces of legislation. The first thing the government did was move time allocation after a couple of days of debate.

You are in a kind of catch-22, Mr. Speaker, that is very problematic for the opposition. If we know that the government has the intention or at least the habit of moving time allocation, then some opposition parties are driven to other forms of obstruction. We then have the government saying that we are obstructing the bill and that we do not really want to debate the bill so it brings in time allocation. If we debate the bill for a couple of days, it says “Well, we have had lots of time to debate the bill” and it moves time allocation. We kind of lose either way.

This is the kind of frustration that is now being visited upon you, Mr. Speaker, and unfairly. You are the prisoner of the rules of the House. You have to act according to the rules of the House and, unfortunately, the rules of the House are not always devised by the House in the best sense of the word. Many of the rules that the opposition parties find most frustrating and distasteful are not rules that were devised by the House in the best sense of the word, that is to say, by all party agreement. They are rules that have been imposed on the House by this government and by previous governments in the interest of achieving a certain amount of advantage for the government over the opposition.

This has a cumulative effect and you, Mr. Speaker, have to enforce these rules, and we have what we have here today.

The so-called genesis of the motion, the dispute about the limits of confidentiality and whether solicitor-client relationship pertains just between the member and the legal counsel they are dealing with, or whether it is between the member of parliament and the whole team, are things that need to be sorted out. It is not a question of assuming that the way things operate now in that respect are totally correct.

As a parliament and as a House we need to have a good look at that because obviously some members have some problems. They feel there should be watertight compartments where there is a great deal of leakage from one person to another or one element of the system to another. There seems to be no consensus as to whether or not that sharing of information between legal counsel and the table and clerks of committees is in violation of some principle or not or whether it is a practice that has grown without much scrutiny but which sometimes has negative consequences. All these things need to be looked at.

What is really happening here today is the result of the cumulative frustration felt by opposition parties.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard me make the point before that you are a prisoner of the rules of the House. Certainly what almost happened a week ago would have put you in solitary confinement, to extend the metaphor. Motion No. 8, under the guise of appearing to give you more power over what amendments would or would not be accepted at report stage, would have given you a certain power. It would have said that you had the power but that you could only use it that much. You would have been in an even tougher position than you sometimes find yourself in now. I know the Chair cannot say so, but it is not hard to imagine that the Chair shared the relief of the opposition when the motion was withdrawn.

I think you, Mr. Speaker, should actually have more power than you do. As I say, you have heard me make this argument before, but what is needed in the House is for the Chair to have more power, even more power over amendments at report stage, not more power over amendments at report stage as delineated by the government but according to your own judgment as to what is appropriate at report stage. You should also have more power over time allocation.

If we could arrive, as a parliament, at a place where we could agree that the Speaker should have that kind of power, then the opposition, it seems to me, would feel much better about this House than we do if we knew that in times when the government was abusing its power, that you as the Chair felt you had the power to step in and protect the opposition from illegitimate or ill-advised use of the power of time allocation.

I say with respect that was not the particular intention. What I am saying is in keeping with the spirit of the intention of the McGrath committee when we recommended back in 1984-85 that the Speaker be elected by secret ballot of the House of Commons. That first happened in 1986 when Speaker Fraser was elected after 13 ballots.

The idea of making the Speaker the creation of the whole House as opposed to an appointee of the government was so that the Speaker would be able to have more power than Speakers previously have had. I would say not out of any criticism of the Chair at this time but as a general point which I have made not just to you, Mr. Speaker, but to a previous Speaker, that I do not think that intention behind the secret ballot has been completely seized.

Speakers have argued, as you have and as Speaker Fraser did, that they need to receive more instruction from the House, that there needs to be more of a consensus from the House if that is the way the Chair is going to act. I respect that although I would still argue to the contrary.

I would hope that given that this is the consistent position of the Chair on this matter, that at some point as a House or through a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or however it comes about, we could arrive at a position where the Speaker would have more power to protect the rights and privileges of opposition parties not to have debate shut down. I would hope that we could arrive at a place where delay is seen as legitimate and is permitted to happen in the form of debate rather than in the form of finding whatever procedural loophole can be found and carrying it to the point of the ridiculous just to call attention to the plight of the opposition with respect to any particular bill.

That calls into disrepute the whole House. It calls into disrepute the democratic process. We do not do anyone any favours by looking like a bunch of people who cannot manage their own affairs or who have to vote for 48 hours continuously and that sort of thing. This does not do anyone any good as far as I am concerned.

There is another point that I would like to make before I sit down. Unfortunately it is those kinds of parliamentary antics that get the attention of the media. We do not belong to just a parliamentary culture, we belong to a certain kind of media culture.

If we were debating something intelligently day in and day out, would there be anyone in the galleries or anyone paying any kind of attention? Would anyone say that a good point was made about a bill and then someone else would make a counterpoint? That would actually inform the public about what was going on in parliament, what good ideas were being exchanged and what the opposing arguments were. We could do that until the cows came home and no one would pay any attention whatsoever, but boy, if we vote all night or we have some kind of procedural spat, then we are all out there in the foyer talking about it.

The media thinks this is the democratic equivalent of worldwide wrestling or something. I have always liked wrestling but I do not like this kind. I would rather that we conducted ourselves in a way that was superior to the way that we have been conducting ourselves and that we had the assurance that some attention would be paid when we do conduct ourselves as I think we should. That is something that is far beyond the power of the Chair to change and seems far beyond my power to change. It is something that all of us can continue to work on.

In the meantime I think this motion is ill advised. Perhaps a reference at some point or a spontaneous initiative on the part of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could look at the whole process of how amendments are dealt with when they are being drafted and whom they are shared with, where confidentiality lies, where solicitor-client relationship obtains, et cetera. That is all worthy of discussion, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you are acting impartially, Mr. Speaker. Therefore we in the NDP intend to vote against this motion.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a comment and say that this motion is not a personal attack on you personally, but rather the sign, I would say, of a deep malaise in this House, where we had the feeling the Chair was been held hostage by the party in power, which is unacceptable.

If there is someone in this House I trust it is you, Mr. Speaker. Because up to now—I was elected here seven years ago—you have been fair in all your rulings.

But lately in the House we have sensed quite a change in the attitude of the government regarding your authority, and this is unacceptable.

So, I wanted to make this comment. I can assure you that for my part, as a member of parliament, if we come to an agreement and manage to restore your powers, you will always be able to count on my support.

However, if we decide to introduce amendments to a bill and call upon a legislative counsel, and this person keeps our documents confidential, it does not make sense that they should become common knowledge.

I am working on amendments to a particular bill. I am wondering whether I am going to call upon legislative counsel because I do not trust them. If, as an elected member of parliament, I can no longer trust the people who are supposed to help me draft amendments or work on bills, and if I feel my rights as an MP are being breached, I cannot work properly. I will no longer feel like defending the interests of my constituents here in the House. I do not believe this is what my constituents want.

I do not know how you are going to solve this, but I believe that somehow we are going to have to make sure that your powers are fully restored and you can freely decide and choose. Second, we have to find a way for us members to restore our trust in the people who are supposed to work for us here in the House and to eliminate partisanship.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

12:50 p.m.

The Speaker

I guess the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona can comment on the commentary.

House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

That is what I intend to do, Mr. Speaker. I think the member made a point which is relevant to the debate and relevant as to why the motion which she appears to support should not be supported. The member said that as far as she is concerned it is not about the Chair, it is not about you, Mr. Speaker. It is about how she feels about these other things that have happened.

All I am saying is I understand how the member feels about these other things that have happened and I think there are some problems that need to be sorted out. However I do not think that they can be sorted out by this process. I suppose we could say the Bloc members were creating a procedural opportunity to talk about what they wanted to talk about, but I think it was an unfortunate choice of a procedural instrument.

A non-confidence motion of the Speaker is something that should be saved for things that really do have to do with a lack of partiality on the part of the Speaker or some other serious charge. It is not that what the Bloc is concerned about is not a serious matter, but to try to fit this square peg of a concern about all the things that the member has mentioned in to the round hole of whether or not the Speaker should be censured I think is a mistake.

The motion is not going to carry if I read the House correctly. When that is all over I think we will have debased the currency of motions of censure of the Speaker and we will still have the problem that the member talked about. We will have to find another way to deal with it. Whatever that other way of dealing with it is, is the way we should have sought in the first place.