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.