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.
André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of Order. I apologize to my colleague. I will be brief. There are a few minutes left in this sitting on this motion. To avoid division in parliament, to avoid a division of the rules which unite us, I would ask if, a few minutes before the end, the Bloc could withdraw its motion—
André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
—since everything has been said, and we could then move on to something else.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have much respect for my Bloc colleagues. In my opinion they are the best opposition members because they have a good understanding of the parliamentary issues in the House of Commons.
I find it sad that they should have chosen this means to protest the outcome of Bill C-20.
Protest, in a democracy, is very important, and I feel it was appropriate for the Bloc members to protest. What I do not understand is the position of the Reform Party.
I understand why the Bloc might want to put this motion forward and support it when the vote comes. What I do not understand is why the Reform Party indicates that it will support this motion. While a protest is perfectly correct in a democracy, and I understand why the Bloc wants to protest, I do find that the Reform Party has confused the issue of being angry at the government for various decisions made by it and believing that they must attack parliament instead of the government.
There has been a long tradition in the House of the Reform Party confusing what the government does with what Mr. Speaker does. I think that is very sad. As I mentioned earlier, the flag debate was a classic example. Members of the Reform Party attacked the Chair, attacked this parliament, on the issue of whether or not a flag should be at their desks. I will always remember the occasion when partisanship really did affect our very symbols. Our symbols are the flag and this parliament and your position, Mr. Speaker. I will always remember the day when the member for Medicine Hat threw the Canadian flag on the floor because he disagreed with your decision.
I implore the Reform Party, please do not attack parliament through the Speaker. Do not attack the institution that is the very foundation of our democracy. Let the Bloc Quebecois have their protest. But I urge the Reform Party to vote against this motion.
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to state right now that I am a Reform Party member and proud of it. I want to clarify for the member that I did not support this motion at all. I know many of my colleagues will not be voting in support of this motion. I just wanted to get that straight.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the member opposite. I think this is certainly a motion that we should all vote our consciences on. I expect the Reform Party and every party, including the members of the Liberal Party, to vote their conscience on this issue.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to allow my hon. colleague from Laval Centre a short period of comments and questions for a maximum of five minutes.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will just make one comment.
The third millenium is starting in this House in a very sad way. The reputation of democracy in a developed society like ours, at least that is what it is claimed to be, was tarnished with passage of Bill C-20 on third reading last night. As if it were not enough, we are dealing today with a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker.
Clearly that does not suit the government, and we can understand that. Why this non-confidence motion?
This motion is before the House following a ruling made by the Speaker on a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis about a lack of confidentiality between parliamentarians and legislative counsel. The right to confidentiality is a fundamental right for any parliamentarian. If this right does not exist when all parliamentarians actually believe it does, there is a problem. It is a bit like the veto for Quebec.
For years, we believed that Quebec had that right. But Quebec was faced the hard fact. Quebec has never had, does not have, and will never have a veto within Canada as we know it today.
I know it was not easy for the leader of Bloc Quebecois to move this motion on March 13. Nobody in my party could have done so lightheartedly.
Like quite a few of my colleagues, I have been in this House since January 17, 1994. I remember quite well your first election to the Chair. You were chosen by your peers. In doing so, they said they totally trusted your judgment, the judgment of an experienced parliamentarian able to rise above the crowd and serve the interests of democracy, which each and every one of the 301 members democratically elected to the House stand for.
Over the years, as a member of this House, I have often appreciated the quality, the moderation and the clarity of your rulings. Of course, you have not always pleased everyone, but we all know that it is impossible, and not always a good thing, to try to please all of the people all of the time, especially peers.
Mr. Speaker, I can easily imagine how hard this whole situation is for you, but I also think that adversity brings out the best in us.
What I am asking of you is that you acknowledge the importance of confidentiality in the conduct of professional discussions between members of parliament and their advisers in the best interest of Canadians and Quebecers.
I would ask you, as the prime and most important servant of parliament, to restore this confidentiality.
Healthy parliamentary democracy demands its restoration. Each and everyone of us will have the certainty of being fully equipped to best serve the interests of those who elected us.
In acting on this request, which I know to be supported by all parliamentarians of good faith on both sides of the House, you will show yourself to be a great Speaker and your prime objective to be the provision to all of your members of services appropriate to their duties.
It is your responsibility, it is within your power, and I sincerely believe that your decision will reinforce the confidence placed by this House in the Chair, since it will leave no doubt as to the manoeuvring room you must have in the performance of your duties.
Through your courageous act, you will show that, in this parliament, there is but one class of member, men and women able to assume to the best of their ability the responsibilities given them. You are the agent of parliamentary democracy, and I know you will prove this to be so, in stellar fashion.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There might perhaps be unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That Motion No. 59 be withdrawn and replaced by the following:
That the issue of the confidentiality of the work of the legislative counsel be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; that the various possible solutions, namely a ) the restructuring of the service to ensure confidentiality; or b ) the reallocation of current resources to the various political parties to allow them to have their own legislative counsel services
be reviewed by the Committee, and that a report proposing concrete solutions be tabled in the House by June 1, 2000.
If we had unanimous consent, I think we could perhaps vote on this motion.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the serious nature of the motion, and so that all members understand it clearly, I wonder whether we should not repeat it, because there may be some members who were not giving it their full attention. I have no trouble with it, but I suggest that, just to be very sure, we repeat the motion.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That Motion No. 59 be withdrawn and replaced by the following:
That the issue of the confidentiality of the work of the legislative counsel be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; that the various possible solutions, namely a ) the restructuring of the service to ensure confidentiality; or b ) the reallocation of current resources to the various political parties to allow them to have their own legislative counsel services
be reviewed by the Committee, and that a report proposing concrete solutions be tabled in the House by June 1, 2000.
House Of CommonsOral Question Period
The Speaker
Does the hon. member have permission to put the motion?
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the issue before the House is very important. I believe the House leader of the government asked the hon. member to please repeat the motion for the benefit of members so they could clearly understand that the solution was an agreed upon solution by all parties. I believe that the member who said no was not in the House at the time the motion was read and it is important. I would therefore ask that the motion be put again for clarity to ensure that this particular member did not misunderstand.
House Of CommonsOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am in the hands of the House. Do hon. members want the motion re-read? The hon. member for Mississauga South has asked to have the motion re-read for whatever reason.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That Motion No. 59 be withdrawn and replaced by the following:
That the issue of the confidentiality of the work of the legislative counsel be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; that the various possible solutions, namely a ) the restructuring of the service to ensure confidentiality; or b ) the reallocation of current resources to the various political parties to allow them to have their own legislative counsel services
be reviewed by the Committee, and that a report proposing concrete solutions be tabled in the House by June 1, 2000.
Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened to this being read three times. I would like to have some assurance from the government House leader that this will be taken seriously and not simply taken into the back room and destroyed so that we are back in the same position that we were before.
If I can have that assurance from the government House leader I will not stop this.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is not my motion but I am certainly willing to commit the government to its full co-operation to have the committee report on that by the date in question of June 1. The original date was a little earlier in the earlier motion but two House leaders, I was one and there was another, proposed that it be backed up so that we could live with the commitment. So the answer is yes.
Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have it more clear than that. I would like to know if the government is committed—
House Of CommonsOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. We are negotiating this on the floor of the House. We seem to be rushed into it. I am going to suspend the House for five minutes. Do whatever talking you have to do and then I am going to either go ahead and ask about this motion or I am going to call a vote. You have five minutes to straighten yourselves out.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.46 p.m.)
The House resumed at 6.50 p.m.
