Debates of May 16th, 2000

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Eamon O Cuiv, Minister of State of Ireland, responsible for Gaeltacht and the Islands.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Privilege

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of a motion that the government intends to move with respect to time allocation on Bill C-25. Yesterday, the government House leader gave notice of his intention to close off debate on this important bill.

[The Speaker]

I believe you are raising a question of privilege on something that has not occurred as yet. Therefore, I do not know how we can argue a point of privilege as a matter of fact on something which may occur or may not occur. Perhaps the hon. opposition House leader could explain.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to give this entire point, I think I can explain why you should not even recognize the government House leader and you should look the other way when he tries to move the motion. The problem is, once the motion is moved the House must be seized of it. I hope to argue and convince you, Mr. Speaker, with this question of privilege that you should not even hear the motion to invoke a record number of time allocations.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I find it difficult to accept that we should be arguing a point that has not come up and that is not before the House. I would rule that we should not be discussing a point of privilege on a matter that has not occurred. Therefore, I rule that this point of privilege is not acceptable at this time.

I am going to go to the second point of privilege which is from the member for Wild Rose.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in regard to a matter relating to what I believe constitutes intimidation and a deliberate attempt to withhold information from me because of my activities in the House during a proceeding of parliament.

Yesterday after I asked a question during question period, Lynn Ballice, the assistant to the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, phoned my assistant for particulars of a report which I spoke about during question period. She told my assistant that it was a report done by an independent consultant they had hired and it was given to Jan Fox, their regional director in March.

While my assistant offered to fax the report to her, she pointed out that the report came from Correctional Service Canada and that is where Ms. Ballice should start looking. Ms. Ballice then called back a few minutes later and said all her management people were out west at a conference and insisted that my assistant fax her the report.

When I returned to the office I instructed my assistant not to fax the report. To me, the situation was getting beyond what was at first maybe humourous and quite frankly was beginning to get just a little frightening. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was in charge at Correctional Service Canada.

At 4:30 p.m. Lynn Ballice phoned back to my office and said she had the commissioner of corrections, Ole Ingstrup, on the speakerphone. She asked why my assistant had not faxed a copy of the report. When advised of my decision, Lynn Ballice said that Correctional Service Canada would not offer me any help or information on this particular report in the future.

This threat came about because of a question I asked in the House. I appreciate the frustration and the embarrassment that this may have caused the commissioner but that does not give him the right to deliberately deny information to a member of parliament, and it does not give him the right to intimidate the staff of a member of parliament.

On December 16, 1980 a Speaker made a ruling in regard to information to which a member of parliament was entitled. The Speaker said it would be bold to suggest that no circumstance could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny information to an hon. member.

Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 71 states:

—the events necessarily incidental to petitions, questions and notices of motions in Parliament—are all events which are part of the “proceedings of Parliament.”

On page 72 there is a quote from a report of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act of 1939 which states “a proceeding in parliament covers both the asking of a question and the giving written notice of such a question”.

Erskine May's 21st edition describes contempt as:

—any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

It is imperative that members of parliament have the confidence to perform their duties with accurate information which is not deliberately misleading or deliberately withheld from them. When a public servant deliberately withholds information because of what was said in the House of Commons is a clear contempt of parliament. Information that is entitled to members of parliament should not be linked to the actions of a member inside or outside the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you consider this a prima facie question of privilege so that this House can determine whether the actions of the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada is in contempt.

[The Speaker]

Before I listen to the member for Kootenay—Columbia, did I understand correctly that the hon. member was speaking directly to the commissioner? Was the hon. member speaking directly to the commissioner?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

No, Mr. Speaker. My staff was speaking directly to the commissioner and his staff. They were all on a speakerphone.

[The Speaker]

Was the hon. member privy to that conversation on the speakerphone? Did he hear the conversation?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

No, Mr. Speaker. This was reported to me by my staff member who asked what she should do. I informed her not to send the report until further notice. I then told her not to send these people anything for having that direct contact with her in that manner.

[The Speaker]

On this point of privilege, I will hear interventions, but I would much prefer to have people take part in this part of the point of privilege who have direct knowledge of what transpired. If they have direct knowledge, I will hear from them.

My colleague, I consider this a very grave matter. What you have raised impacts on all members in this House if indeed it did occur. It occurred in the Department of the Solicitor General. I would like to hear a response from the solicitor general or his parliamentary secretary or one of the spokespersons for the government. I will reserve judgment until I hear from them but I do want to hear from them, or I will make a ruling in the absence of any intervention from the other side.

I am going to hear a point of order from the hon. member but I have two points of order which I said that I would hear. One is from the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

Points Of Order

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from my colleague from Calgary Centre, the heritage minister said that I had written her department on numerous occasions about getting loans or grants, or things of that nature.

I think the minister would want to have the opportunity to correct that impression, because it was without any basis of fact or statement.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member has put his views on the record on the issue.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today you ruled that I could not raise a question of privilege regarding the putting of a motion on time allocation, even though the notice of time allocation had been given by the government House leader and we knew that it was going to be before the House.

If I could point out three other points on that point, I would like to raise it as a point of order.

First, on October 8, 1997 the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona raised a question of privilege regarding the closing of debate on Bill C-2. He did it in exactly the same manner in which I would have liked to have done it today. In other words, there has been notice of time allocation. We know it is coming. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona raised a question of privilege and spoke to it. You accepted the question at that time, Mr. Speaker, and he made his arguments to you at that time.

Second, on Motion No. 8, which was previously before parliament, we had discussion before the motion actually was tabled in the House. It was on the notice paper and we in the House were seized of it before it was actually moved. Eventually that motion was withdrawn.

Third, in the last parliament the Speaker also ruled that a member could not raise a point of order about the acceptability of a motion if the motion had already been accepted by the Chair. In other words, Mr. Speaker, once you accept the motion we have to accept that it is in order.

You have put me in a bit of a catch-22 in asking me to wait until the motion is tabled, because once it is tabled I am not allowed to speak to it.

If I could, I would like to raise as a point of order the reasons I think you should hear this as a point of order. I think it is a point of privilege, but I will present it to you, if you wish, as a point of order as to why the motion of time allocation put by the government House leader is unacceptable.

[The Speaker]

Do you think you are in a catch-22? You have put the Speaker in a catch-22. Let me quote to you.

What I quoted, I believe, in 1997 is found at page 570 of our new book, House of Commons Procedure and Practice , by Montpetit and Marleau, which states:

As with closure, the Speaker has ruled that the Chair possesses no discretionary authority to refuse to put a motion of time allocation if all the procedural exigencies have been observed.

That is what the hon. member said. What I am saying is that you cannot argue your point until the motion is put. On the other hand, you are saying that you cannot argue it after because I am going to make that decision. You are right. That is the decision I would have made.

If you would like to try to convince me, I will listen to you for about three minutes. If you can convince me in three minutes that I should be listening to you, then I will listen to you.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I can do it in three minutes, but I will rush to it.

Today would be a record setting number of times that time allocation would have been used. In Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 3 outlines some elements of our Constitution Act, and it is relevant. It states:

More tentative are such traditional features as respect for the rights of the minority, which precludes a Government from using to excess the extensive powers that it has to limit debate or to proceed in what the public and the Opposition might interpret as unorthodox ways.

In other words, there is another way to look at it.

Going back to the argument presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, he suggested that the Chair intervene on the collective rights of the minority. The case has been made that the Chair possesses no discretionary authority to refuse to put a motion of time allocation, but I do not agree with this claim and I will prove that the Speaker does not possess this authority.

On May 2, 2000, during a discussion of the rule of time allocation at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Clerk of the House of Commons, Robert Marleau, responded to a question regarding the Speaker's authority to protect the minority in the manner prescribed earlier. The Clerk said:

—it exists intrinsically in the role of the Speakership all the time—where there could be the tyranny of either side. It could be the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority.

At a subsequent meeting on May 4 the Clerk suggested that with time allocation the Speaker is less likely to intervene. There is a reference to this at page 570 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice . However, he used the extreme example that if the government time allocated every bill the Speaker might intervene.

My interpretation of what the Clerk said is that there does exist a limit to what a majority government can do with respect to time allocation. There comes a line in the sand, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned that earlier when I quoted Beauchesne.

The Clerk used the extreme example of every bill in his response because he knows it is not up to the Clerk to establish the limit. Obviously 66 times was not the limit because it went ahead last time. However, yesterday the government gave notice of its intention to move time allocation for the 67th time. In search of a benchmark of what constitutes excess, I would suggest that 67 closure and time allocation motions moved within six years for the sole purpose of muzzling the opposition is excessive.

At page 369 of Marleau and Montpetit there is reference to an intervention by the Speaker on time allocation related tactics used by the government. It describes how Speaker Fraser ruled on the government tactic of skipping over Routine Proceedings in order to go to orders of the day. As we are all aware, this tactic, if allowed, secures for the government the opportunity to move time allocation regardless of where it is in the orders of the day.

While Speaker Fraser ruled such a motion in order on April 13, 1987, page 369 of Marleau and Montpetit references another ruling where the Speaker ruled out of order a similar motion only months before. In other words, the discretion is with the Speaker as to whether it is acceptable.

The rules governing time allocation can be found in Standing Order 78, but when the government allows only a minimum amount of time to debate each stage of a controversial bill, this prevents the opposition from doing its job. It prevents the opposition from enlisting public support. The right of an opposition to raise the profile of an issue is an indispensable principle. Beauchesne's sixth edition states:

—to protect the minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.

This is all about debate, and the reason we are here is to have debate. Speaker Fraser put it this way:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.

In 1949 the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker said this to the Empire Club in Toronto:

If Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His Majesty's Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends.

In 1967 another distinguished parliamentarian, the late Stanley Knowles, added this comment to the debate:

I submit, therefore, that you do not have full political democracy, let alone the economic as well as political democracy, unless you include a full and unquestioned recognition of the rights and functions of the opposition to the government of the day. Only in this way can you protect the rights of the minorities; only in this way can you make sure that the force of public opinion will be brought to bear on the legislative process.

One of the reasons the opposition exists is to someday replace the government. The opposition should conduct itself in parliament so as to persuade the people of the country that it could be an improvement on the government of the day. Our system of government works best when there is a change of government, or at least an opportunity to change government at reasonable intervals.

If the government continues to silence the opposition at every turn, the opposition will never be able to use parliamentary debate to persuade the people of Canada. While the rights of the opposition are immediately and most visibly at stake, ultimately the threat is to democratic rights and freedoms generally.

In conclusion, I would like to offer three points. One is for the Chair to consider and two are for the House.

First, perhaps now is the time for the Speaker to look the other way, as the member for Winnipeg—Transcona suggested at the beginning of this parliament, not see the minister and prevent the 67th motion from being moved.

My second suggestion is that the government and this House should seriously consider reforming the way we do business by sitting the proper calendar period, sitting the days we are supposed to sit, and consider using free votes so that the government is not forced to use time allocation so often.

Another way is to change the rules of debate so that we get to important business and controversial business in a timely fashion, instead of waiting until the last dog is hung.

A short delay of even a day would send a message to the government that you, Mr. Speaker, believe the line in the sand has been crept up to and is in danger of being passed.

In Dante's Inferno he described the nine circles of hell. In the context of the Canadian parliamentary system, I believe the government has brought us into circle number eight. Circle number eight is the place for the sowers of discord. This government has brought us dangerously close to a dysfunctional parliament by risking the rights of the minority and by using such a controversial way to bring so much legislation through the House.

[The Speaker]

I too have searched through the books which would say that the Speaker has the discretion after the government has brought in time allocation 20 times. Some people would say 20 times is too much. Other people would say, as you have, that because it broke a standard which was set by another government, then that point is too much.

The Speaker has no guidance from the House as to what is too much or what is too little. At this point I would imagine, as Speaker Fraser said, if every bill and every motion were subjected to time allocation, that would be a bit much.

However, I am very much interested, as Speaker and as a servant of the House, in what the hon. member had as a second suggestion. At this point at least the hon. House leader of the opposition wants me to draw a line in the sand, saying that this is as far as it goes. I would much prefer that the House deal with this problem, as House leaders have for 133 years. They were able to sit down to figure out what would be a reasonable amount of time for debate and, after that amount of time, what would be reasonable in terms of the use of time allocation.

If there is discord in the House, surely it is not up to the Speaker to jump in and cause more discord. The five House leaders are here to listen to what I have to say. If there is this discord which the hon. House leader of the opposition has brought up, then I would encourage the House leaders to get a system which would work for all of us.

I think, at least at this point, that I would not be prepared to intervene, but I am very much prepared to encourage the House leaders who are here today to come together to find a solution that we could all live with so that members of the House can perform the functions for which we were elected.

The government is here to present motions and bills. The opposition is here to make them better; to question them along the way. We all understand that the opposition, the dissenting voice, has every right to be heard. On the other side, Speaker Fraser has said, and I am paraphrasing him, that the government has the right to govern.

At this time, is the House dysfunctional? I would argue that if there is this discord, that it be addressed by the House leaders. I would ask you to do this as soon as possible and, if at all possible, before we adjourn for the summer. I think that suggestion is an excellent one.

I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, who is a respected parliamentarian, wants to make an intervention and I will permit a very short intervention if he wishes to add something.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as one of the House leaders I would certainly undertake and be willing to be part of a discussion among the House leaders as to what might be done in this area.

There are some difficulties that would certainly have to be overcome if the House leaders were to be able to arrive at the kind of advice that I think the Chair is seeking with respect to how to exercise this discretion. It has not been exercised very often, or one could argue at all, certainly in the time that I have been here.

I wanted to make the argument in principle, as I have before, that this discretion on the part of the Speaker should exist and should be practised. I take the point that the Chair might want some guidance, if that is possible. There is room for judgment that emanates from the Chair itself and not just from the House leaders in this respect.

I do not think it is a matter of numbers, although it does stand as a condemnation of the government that it has now broken the record of a previous government with respect to the introduction of time allocation. I nevertheless think that if the Chair were to exercise this discretion it would have to be judged on the merits of each and every time allocation and not now that we have reached 55, 65, 10 or whatever. I do not think that is a very strong argument. It may be a strong argument in terms of how the government behaves, but I do not think it is a potential source of guidance to the Chair as to when this discretion should be exercised.

It is unfortunate that the record was broken on an old piece of legislation when it probably should not have been. It is an old piece of legislation. It is not something that is momentous. I can think of lots of pieces of legislation that have come before parliament that have been time allocated which were very significant and never should have been time allocated. It would have been nice to have had this debate around those pieces of legislation rather than the bill we are having it around.

I just wanted to make the point that I think there are occasions when the Chair should take it upon itself. It is also true that I think the Chair has the right to ask for some guidance from the House, if it is possible, on these matters. Hopefully we might be able to do that in the near future.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some brief remarks as well. Being a member of the party that held the previous record, one of which we are not necessarily proud, we are certainly glad that although the hon. House leader in his wisdom railed against such high handed tactics when in opposition, wailed like a banshee, he has now surpassed the dubious honour of invoking time allocation.

I know a fine nuance was invoked in question period today when he referred to the fact that it was not closure. It is akin to differentiating between a club and a sword as to the method of shutting down debate.

I would as well offer support for the Chair in its wisdom of seeking advice and in the suggestion that House leaders convene a meeting to discuss this matter. It seems to me that in principle part of the problem which has led us to this point is a breakdown in communication. It is incumbent upon the opposition in its willingness to try to come to some agreement with the government House leader as to how we resolve matters of debate in the House without coming to a breaking point where the government House leader feels that he has to invoke the heavy handed measure of shutting down debate in such a unilateral fashion.

In the short time that I have to make these remarks, I want to offer support for the suggestion the Chair has brought forward to convene a meeting where this communication perhaps can be improved.

Perhaps in the future, although it has been only six years that the government has taken to surpass this benchmark or high water mark that it took the previous administration nine years to achieve in a dubious way, we can hopefully make better use of alternative channels of communication, the meetings of the House leaders being one and perhaps the best. In this way we could try to avoid getting to the point where all members of the House are being affected in a very substantial way.

I agree with the member for Winnipeg—Transcona when he says that there are more important pieces of legislation and matters of debate that would have led to discussions of this nature earlier. I do not mean to call this bill inconsequential, but it is simply, as pointed out by the opposition House leader, that we have reached a point in this short time where there is almost something like creeping softness and acceptance of the use of time allocation as a procedural blocking mechanism for debate. It has become an accepted manner of shutting down what is only to be deemed as the last bastion of debate on matters for the opposition to call the government to task on.

I strongly encourage the Chair to give this matter urgent attention. We cannot have this as an accepted practice. I would suggest that for us to do otherwise is to acquiesce and show apathy toward the deterioration of the procedures, the workings and the functions of the House.

[The Speaker]

I am going to give the floor to the member from the Bloc Quebecois, but another statement has been made by the House leader of the Conservative Party. I believe he called for moderation on all sides of the House, and that includes all five parties.

We now have two suggestions. The first is that the House leaders in some way discuss this matter and, second, that there has to be openness and give and take on both sides. It is in the best traditions of the House that the House can grapple with a problem and that the House, through its House leaders if necessary, can come to some kind of conclusion.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish you to know that, in my opinion, your suggestion that the parliamentary leaders seek a way of settling this problem, as is often done, is a reasonable one.

I would, however, like to point out that, every time the government or the opposition makes use of mechanisms to hold up debate, to speed it up, to limit its length, it must be an exception. We all agree on that.

Today the official opposition and the other parties are complaining of what seems to us to be an excessive use of time allocation motions by the government. I think that the figures will show that there has been a certain increase.

I take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that this is not the only point of dispute in our discussions. Hon. members are aware that a motion was backed by the government in the procedure and House affairs committee, and it was also supported by other political parties.

The purpose of that motion was to have the mechanism used by the opposition to allow it a little longer, on occasion, to vote on a number of bills set aside, by giving each party whip the ability to vote on behalf of his colleagues. I and my party have always been opposed to such a mechanism. I have been told that it has not yet and may possibly never be introduced in the House at this point.

I take this opportunity to point out to my colleagues on this side of the House that, in both cases, the problem is exactly the same. It is no more interesting for the opposition to watch the government abuse time allocation than it is for the opposition to watch the government adopting mechanisms to prevent us from using our own exceptional mechanism, or one of our own exceptional mechanisms, in order to prolong the debate, that is, multiple votes or other strategies such as long debates.

I would simply like to say that if we came away from this place today at the end of a debate, which has not lasted long, but which has taught us a lot, if we came away with some sort of unanimity recognizing that your suggestion is very wise, that we should all discuss time allocation motions, that we should all discuss means that might be put forward in order to limit the opposition's ability to impede the work of the House but that could as well allow us to discuss the government's right to move files along, we would see this parliament as balanced.

If, for one reason or another, parliament does not function in a balanced manner, if the opposition or the government abuse their respective privileges, we are headed for a bleak period in this place. Whenever this happens, democracy is always put on hold and thwarted, and this is not what anybody really wants. What we want is to be able to function as democratically as possible here, and to use the means passed on to us by our predecessors to best advantage.

In my view, the only way forward in the dispute that concerns us, as well as the House leader of the Canadian Alliance and all other members of the House, today is to go along with the Speaker's suggestion that the House leaders get together and discuss the matter. I believe that, if balance is to be maintained, any decisions made must involve agreement between the parties.

I agree with your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that nothing will be done without agreement between the House leaders. Since it is everyone's goal to leave a positive mark in this parliament, I sincerely believe that we will do everything we can to work out an arrangement.

I am willing to go along with your suggestion and I hope that the government leader will show the same openness to your recommendations, and that the other party leaders will do likewise. I think this is the way to go if we want to function efficiently.

[The Speaker]

The House leaders have spoken today. They have given their opinions. As I reiterated, it is not up to the Chair to make a hard and fast ruling, but it is up to the Chair surely to encourage not only House leaders but all members of the House to make it so that the House functions in a reasonably amicable way and that we can carry out our functions.

Two suggestions were made, one by the opposition House leader and one by the House leader of the Conservative Party. The words which were added by the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party and by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois should help us.

Having said that, I cannot order House leaders to come together to settle this matter. That is a given, but I can surely encourage House leaders to come together, at least in the spirit of trying to find some kind of solution to an area which probably could take a bit more looking at.

I have given my advice to the House. The House leaders generally have given their opinions in the House.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Some have.

[The Speaker]

Yes, I am corrected. I invite all House leaders, if they wish to partake in the particular discussion, to do so.

The floor of the House of Commons is not the usual place for these discussions to take place, but surely in private if the House leaders wanted to come together I for one would look upon this favourably so that the Chair is not called upon at different times in different circumstances to say that 67 are too many, 97 are too many, or 180 are too many. The House leaders have traditionally found ways to get along in the House and that is what I would encourage for the House, the House leaders and, indeed, all members.

If you would take my words, each others words and even the lack of words into consideration then perhaps we can work our way out of this. The House has usually found a way.

Having said that, I will put this matter to one side. I am always hopeful that we can find ways out of whatever dilemmas were are in.