Debates of March 28th, 2000

Privilege

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the issue is stripped down what I am hearing is that the Reform member is arguing that the ends justified the means. He expressed frustration at the rules of the House and then knowingly broke them, I guess to invite confrontation.

When there is a document that is marked “confidential until tabled in the House” and a member has a press conference on it, I would say that the member has knowingly and deliberately broken the rules of the House. I do not know how we could come to any other conclusion.

Does the hon. member share that view? Is this simply an argument of the ends justifying the means?

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would hope that is not the motive of the hon. member for Lakeland or the game he wants to play.

This is a very important issue. The committee went in camera to discuss not the options paper but to discuss the draft report along with the recommendations. We spent the better part of a day looking at that discussion paper and recommendations. The member participated.

He objected to the fact that he found in a brown envelope legislation that the minister had already drafted. We went to great lengths to point out to him that it was not a piece of legislation that was before the House or before a committee and in fact it was one way that ministries obviously look at consultation.

Before he held his news conference, I went over to him to plead with him not to release the hard work of the committee, that we still needed to do 50% of the work and we still needed to have two additional meetings. I invited him to attend the meetings. He refused to participate any further in the meetings.

I told him that over the course of the six months that I have been Chair and he has been a committee member that he has done some very useful work. I pleaded with him to respect the rules of the House, that when a committee is looking at something in confidence he ought to have respect for his fellow members of parliament and deal with it in a very conscientious and serious manner. I said that if he had some procedure problems he may not agree with that belong to the House and to the committee, then perhaps he should put those concerns on paper to the Speaker so the procedure and House affairs committee could deal with them once and for all.

The ends do not justify the means. The fact is the House wants to do some very good work and needs to do it. The standing orders say that if there is a confidential report, it cannot be released before it is tabled in the House. To do so a member would find himself in breach of privileges. That is precisely what the Speaker found this afternoon, a prima facie case of breach of privilege to the House and to all of its members.

This kind of action is not to be condoned at all. It is reprehensible when confidential committee reports are leaked by any member of the House, regardless of whether or not they are members of the government.

We are to respect the rules of the House. That is what democracy is all about. It is about respecting rules. It is about changing the rules if in fact we feel they must be changed.

The ends do not justify the means. Just because members do not like the rules does not mean they call a news conference for the purposes of making public something that should remain in confidence until the House has had the opportunity to debate it.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to bring to your attention on page 140 of Erskine May a ruling of the Chair in a previous situation similar to what we are dealing with here today. About halfway down the page in dealing with these complaints of breach of privilege it says that when the member accused has made a proper apology for his offence, the incriminating motion has usually been withdrawn.

That is exactly where we are right now. The member for Lakeland has said that having examined the ruling of the Chair earlier, he has made an apology for his actions. He understandably has some problems with how the committee is run, but that fight is going to have to be fought in committee and will continue hopefully without rancour in the days to come.

Nowhere does Erskine May say that the motion has to be withdrawn with unanimous consent. It just says the motion has usually been withdrawn. I would ask the Speaker to ask both the mover of the motion, and the mover of the amendment in this case, if they are prepared to withdraw their motions. It seems to me according to Erskine May that should be acceptable and we could get on with the business of the House because I think that is really what we are all here to do.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

If I understand correctly, the hon. member is saying that such a motion which was presented earlier does not need the consent of the House. I do not believe that is so. Any motion brought before the House needs the consent of the House. What I could do at this time is put the question again and see whether we have consent.

Does the hon. member for London North Centre have the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Because of the time we took to deal with the point of order, the time for questions and comments has expired.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to know if we are going to debate Bill C-13.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

For the time being, the debate is still on the motion before the House.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the debate is now on the amendment.

It is my pleasure to rise and debate this issue. It is important that we have a chance to really talk about what is happening. Despite what we have heard from the Liberals across the way, this is about more than whether my colleague did something that broke the rules of the House by releasing a document that was supposed to be confidential. We already know that my colleague has very graciously apologized for anything that he did that may have violated the rules. He has done the right thing. This gives us an opportunity to talk about a larger issue and that is very important.

A minute ago my colleague from across the way and, previous to him, another Liberal colleague, said that the ends do not justify the means. I suggest that the rules that govern committees really are the means that justify the ends. This is a situation where rules have been put in place that allow the governing side to do whatever it wants and that justify any decision it makes without really having to put up with the messy business of democracy.

I will explain exactly what I mean. We have a situation where my friend has complained that the committee agreed that the issue of the draft report would be discussed only in public. It then affirmed in a vote that the issue would not be discussed in camera. It was to be discussed publicly. What did it do? It did not vote to go in camera, it just went in camera. The chair said “We are in camera now”. Apparently that is all that is required. Mr. Speaker rose and said “That is the way it is in committees. Committees govern themselves”.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we were gracious enough to put the motion to withdraw but there was no unanimous consent from this side. I wonder if you could clarify this, Madam Speaker. On the point of relevancy, it seems to me that the Reform Party is again challenging the Speaker—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid that is debate not a point of order.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in terms of debate, there is a question of relevancy to the point. It seems to me that what some members over there are talking about is challenging the ruling of the Speaker with regard to this prima facie case of privilege.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for London North Centre knows full well that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. If he wants to debate he should get on during questions and comments. Let the debate continue.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I believe that the hon. member for Medicine Hat was using his time for debate properly.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, the point I was making before my friend started to challenge the ruling of the Speaker was that this is a situation where the government has done everything that it can to ensure that the rules that govern committees favour the government. There is no question about that.

I have already recounted what has happened to my colleague. He admits that he violated the rules and, out of frustration, went to the lengths that he did, and that is absolutely relevant. It also points to the problem in general of a mouthing of a commitment to democracy in this place, but when it gets down to brass tacks as to whether we are really a democratic institution, I think the answer is no. We are not nearly the democratic institution that we could be, and there are so many examples of that. I am sure I could give a long list of examples but I do not want to scare people.

I want people to consider what happens when we select committee chairs in the first place. The opposition comes in, the government members come in and not far behind them is the whip. The whip sits there—

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

The government whip.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Yes, the government whip sits there to make sure that we have a democratic vote. All the government people sit and vote in favour of a Liberal to be the chair of that committee. That is democracy Liberal style. If they do not, they will be punished. That is why that government whip sits there every time and that is how that works.

I remember very well that when I sat on the Canadian heritage committee a few years ago the Bloc Quebecois was the official opposition. This was a Canadian heritage committee protecting Canadian heritage. It was of course Bloc members who were made vice-chairs of that committee because the government members were told that they had to support—

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you might seek unanimous consent of the House to suspend debate on the motion and begin Private Members' Business at 5.30 p.m.

On a number of occasions now, for a variety of reasons, we have put off debate on the hon. member's bill on shipyards. He would be very happy if we could have unanimous consent to suspend debate on the motion and proceed with Private Members' Business.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given the intervention of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, I understand that there are some discussions going on among the leaders of the parties, and although we are getting close to 5.30, I would give advance notice that I would decline unanimous consent at this point to the request of the member. Hopefully between now and 5.30 the matter might be resolved.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for Rimouski—Mitis has put a request for unanimous consent, so I will put the request for unanimous consent before the House.

Is there unanimous consent of the House to go to Private Members' Business at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I can finish what I want to say. People keep interrupting me.

There are many examples of how the government mouths a commitment to democracy and simply does not follow through, and the rules allow it to do this. As Mr. Speaker pointed out in his ruling, we have a situation where committees are really the masters of their own affairs. When we have government members sitting in a majority position on these committees, it effectively means that they have carte blanche. There is no such thing as individual rights for members of parliament.

A minute ago I mentioned the situation a few year's ago when I was sitting on the Canadian heritage committee. At that time the Bloc Quebecois was the official opposition, but there was some support for an opposition member other than a Bloc member to be a vice-chair of that committee. Duly we saw the whip come in and ensure that the Bloc Quebecois became the vice-chair on that committee. We see this over and over again on other committees, even the last time we put committees together. I think that is wrong. Canadians expect the highest legislative Chamber in the country to be the most democratic.

Completely to the contrary, we have a situation where we see an elected dictatorship. I hate to use that term. My friend, the transport minister, says “Oh no, oh no”, but we have a situation where Canadians from coast to coast say exactly that and they correctly suspect that we have a situation where between elections Canadians are effectively gagged because members are not allowed to represent their constituents. We have rules in place that impede that.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The time is getting very close to a certain magical hour. I would therefore ask hon. members for unanimous consent to move the following motion. I move:

That the debate on the motion concerning the question of privilege be deemed to have been concluded, that the question be deemed put on the amendment and a recorded division be deemed required and deferred until Wednesday, March 29 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders;

That the question be deemed to have been put on the motion for the third reading of Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, March 29 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

That the House proceed forthwith to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.