Debates of March 19th, 2001

Criminal Code

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-302, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce this private member's bill. The concept for it began when Craig Powell, Amber Keuben, Brandy Keuben and Stephanie Smith were all instantly killed by a drunk driver on June 23, 1996, near Morley, Alberta as they returned from a camping trip.

The drunk driver in this case was Christopher Goodstoney who was charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing injury.

At his sentencing hearing the judge referred to section 718.2(e) of the criminal code which stated that they must take into consideration for sentencing the fact that the offender was aboriginal.

Based on information we have heard lately, we are submitting the bill for the purpose of removing that section which in our opinion is very racial based.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-303, an act to amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime).

Mr. Speaker, this enactment amends the criminal code and designates several offences under the Immigration Act as proceeds of crime offences. The offences so designated concern persons who induce, encourage or aid in organizing the unlawful entry of persons into Canada.

Under the criminal code, where an offender has been convicted of an enterprise crime offence and the court imposing sentence on the offender upon application of the attorney general is satisfied that any property is proceeds of crime and that the enterprise crime offence was committed in relation to that property, the court shall order that the property be forfeited to Her Majesty. In other words, it takes the profit motive out of international people smuggling.

It is a general government objective that remains undone and the bill would fix it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-304, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution).

Mr. Speaker, under this enactment offences related to prostitution that are provided for in section 213 of the criminal code from now on would be either indictable offences or summary conviction offences, commonly known as a hybrid offence.

It is a small technical point that has huge resourcing implications to keep juveniles from entering into the street trade. It has been a subject of federal-provincial attorneys general in the past.

All parties should see the wisdom of this minor but pivotal improvement.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Provencher on March 14, 2001, regarding a briefing the Department of Justice held on a bill on notice that had not yet been introduced in the House.

The bill has now received first reading as Bill C-15, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts.

I wish to thank the hon. government House leader, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, and the hon. opposition House leader for their interventions.

Let me first summarize the events that led up to this question of privilege being raised. From the interventions of members it appears that the Department of Justice sent out a media advisory notifying recipients that there would be a technical briefing given by justice officials at 11.45 a.m. on Wednesday, March 14, with regard to the omnibus bill, now Bill C-15, that was to be introduced in the House by the hon. Minister of Justice that afternoon.

According to the hon. member for Provencher, members of parliament and their staff were denied access to the briefing. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville added that while his assistant was denied access to the briefing, the assistant of a government member was granted entry. In any event, there is no disputing that the invitation to this so-called technical briefing went out as a media advisory and was designed for members of the media.

The hon. member for Provencher indicated that following the briefing media representatives began phoning his office and asking for his reaction to the bill, a situation he found embarrassing, not only for himself and other members of the opposition, but also for the House of Commons as a whole since they had not seen the bill and were not privy to its contents.

The hon. government House leader confirmed that opposition critics were given a courtesy copy of Bill C-15 about an hour and a quarter before the bill's introduction.

The minister explained that during the briefing, the media had not received actual copies of the bill or any other documentation. He went on to indicate that the briefing itself was under embargo until the bill was introduced, a fact confirmed by the copy of the original media advisory that the Chair has obtained.

The member for Provencher, as well as the other opposition members who participated in the discussion, argued that by not providing information to members of parliament and by refusing to allow members to participate in a briefing where the media were present, the government, and in particular the Department of Justice, showed contempt for the House of Commons and its members.

As I see it, there are two issues here: the matter of the embargoed briefing to the media and the issue of members' access to information required to fulfil their duties.

As members know, the use of media embargoes, as well as the use of lock-ups, have long played a role in the way parliamentary business is conducted. For example, it has been our practice to permit briefings in lock-ups prior to the tabling of reports by the auditor general. Similarly, and perhaps more on point, is the lock-up held on the day of a budget presentation. Two features of these lock-ups are that members are invited to be present and members of the media are detained until the event in question has occurred; that is the auditor general's report tabled or the budget speech begun. These are the features one might argue that have made these lock-ups so successful and so useful to the conduct of parliamentary business.

It must, however, be remembered that when the different arrangements have been made for early briefings, previous Speakers have consistently held that it is not a breach of privilege to exclude members from lock-ups. I refer the House, for example, to the ruling of Speaker Jerome, in Debates , November 27, 1978, p. 1518-9, and the ruling of Speaker Sauvé, in Debates , February 25, 1981, p. 7670.

The House recognizes that when complex or technical documents are to be presented in this Chamber, media briefings are highly useful. They ensure that the public receives information that is both timely and accurate concerning business before the House.

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

Thus, the issue of denying to members information that they need to do their work has been the key consideration for the Chair in reviewing this particular question of privilege. To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

Even if no documents were given out at the briefing, as the hon. government House leader has assured the House, it is undisputed that confidential information about the bill was provided. While it may have been the intention to embargo that information as an essential safeguard of the rights of this House, the evidence would indicate that no effective embargo occurred.

In this case it is clear that information concerning legislation, although denied to members, was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House.

I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House and I invite the hon. member for Provencher to move a motion.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend you for listening to the representations that were made in the House. I also commend you on your fairness and your integrity. I believe that when members of the House voted for you to take the chair, these are the kinds of fair and well thought out decisions that members were expecting from you.

This decision certainly does not disappoint me. You in fact are upholding the integrity, not only of the rights of individual members but of the House with respect of your ruling. I think in the past the government has got away with some of these issues.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, you want me to move the motion, but I want to say that the steps you took were important to stop this slide. Therefore I move:

That the matter of the question of privilege raised on March 14, 2001, by the Member for Provencher regarding the Department of Justice briefing the media on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts, prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons and at the exclusion of members of parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Again I commend you, Mr. Speaker, on your fairness and your integrity with respect to your ruling. I will make a few comments before concluding this matter in the House.

Over the past number of years there has been a gradual slide in terms of the respect to which parliament is entitled. This ruling by you today does much to ensure that the integrity of the House and the process here is continued.

I challenge the Liberal majority in the House and on the committee to put aside its partisan issues, come to the aid of parliament and preserve its dignity, its authority and that of its members.

What you are doing today, Mr. Speaker, gives us an opportunity to take meaningful steps to deal with this very contentious and difficult issue.

I would like to put a few other situations on the record which I think may form part of the discussions that we will have in committee concerning the prima facie contempt that you have found that has occurred in respect of parliament.

I refer, to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board matter dated October 23 of last year. A government news release announced that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the new Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The nominating committee was to have been set up under a clause that had not yet been adopted by the House.

Similarly, on January 21, 1998, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4, tabled at report stage by opposition members, had not been debated, and while the House was still in the process of debating how many directors should be elected, the minister was in fact holding meetings as though the bill were already law.

We recognize that the Liberal government has a majority in the House and in committees but, for the integrity of the process, it is essential that members of the opposition, who were also elected by the people of Canada to represent their views, be given that opportunity.

While we have witnessed a gradual slide in the respect that the government has shown to the institution of parliament, your ruling today, Mr. Speaker, will, if the Liberal members opposite co-operate, bring about rules that will perhaps govern this kind of situation in the future.

This is not simply a matter that I, as an opposition critic, have been embarrassed or that my colleagues, who received phone calls asking for their comments, have been embarrassed, it is for the integrity of the House and for the voters who sent us here.

With those few brief words, Mr. Speaker, I again thank you. We appreciate the fairness that you have demonstrated. We look forward to working on a co-operative basis with all opposition members and Liberal members of the House whom I believe your ruling will also benefit.

If we follow the matter to its appropriate and proper conclusion, it will once again put parliament in the hands of the individual elected members. It will remind the members of the executive that even though they are appointed by the Prime Minister they must serve each and every member of the House in the same manner that we as individual members serve the people of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the wisdom and the fairness of the Chair in coming to this decision today.

I think it does bear repeating how it is that we arrived at this point. There has been a steady erosion of the respect, sadly, that Canadians feel for this institution. This type of decision, as the hon. member for Provencher has stated, does go a long way in restoring some of the lost respect that exists for members of parliament. It will perhaps buff away some of the tarnish that has come about under this government's administration.

Members of parliament have the right to be informed first and foremost. The Chamber should, in most, if not all cases, be the primary forum for disclosure on the part of the government when new legislation is being brought in. That has not been the case for a number of years.

The icon of the Liberal Party, the late Pierre Trudeau, used to speak of members of parliament as being nobodies 50 feet off the Hill. The Liberals are certainly reinforcing that sentiment with the behaviour that we have seen displayed over the past number of years.

Having members of the press gallery briefed and informed about important omnibus legislation, changes to the criminal code and new introductions of amendments to the criminal code, is an absolute insult to members of parliament.

As was said in a Hollywood movie, “if you build it, they will come”, if we introduce legislation here, members of the media will come. We do not need to hand feed members of the media. If it becomes the practice of the government to introduce legislation here, to make important statements and pronouncements on public policy, if it had one, it can fully expect that members of the media will come. The government should also expect that members of the opposition will respond and should be given that opportunity.

Very seldom have we seen in routine business members of the government get up under statements by ministers and inform the House as to what they intend to do or what legislation they might be bringing forward. It is all done through press releases, through media spin doctoring and through attempts to put an opposition member very often in the uncomfortable position, as we saw in this case, of trying to respond to something on which he or she is not fully informed, and that is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I again commend you for having taken some steps to safeguard the rights and privileges of members with your ruling today.

The table scraps that we sometimes receive as information are also insults. Sometimes a full briefing is provided to members of the media while we receive a fairly complex bill, by everyone's assessment, an hour before question period, where members are required to be here to try and concentrate—although we have seen examples of late where there was little concentration going on in the Chamber—and then be able to go out and face the onslaught of very precise, penetrating questions from the media. It is simply unthinkable and unrealistic to expect that members of parliament will be able to do that.

I commend not only yourself but the member for Provencher for bringing this matter forward. I fully hope and trust that the committee, in its good work, will have an opportunity to bring forward proposals that would prevent this type of thing from happening in the future.

I would hope, first and foremost, that the Minister of Justice and her cadre of lawyers will get the message and heed the words of the Chair and eventually the admonition and words of the committee when it has an opportunity to delve into this matter further. I would also hope that at the very least there will be a shot across the bow, a message sent and received, that the department cannot behave in this way. That, first and foremost, may set an example and raise the bar slightly for other departments.

It is a disgrace that the Department of Justice, above all ministries in the government, would partake in this type of underhanded tactic. With the resources available to it and with the importance and emphasis on fairness, the very symbol of the Department of Justice, two scales, obviously was tipped in a very partisan and partial way toward the government in this instance.

We hope, Mr. Speaker, that situations like this can be avoided in the future, although you will have to excuse my skepticism. We know that the government has undertaken at least some steps to look at parliamentary reform. This again may pave the way for some good intent and, we would hope, goodwill on the part of the government to follow through on those commitments, but time will tell.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that members of the Progressive Conservative Party, as all opposition members, will be there at the gate to watch this process unfold. It is a very important process indeed as all members of the House and, equally important, the Canadian public, are watching to see if we can in some fashion bring about greater relevance and credibility to this Chamber that we call the House of Commons.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the government side I too want to express my thanks for your ruling. It makes a great deal of sense to the House and that is exactly what the House was expecting from the Chair. I am sure government members will support the motion that has been made by the member from the Alliance.

With regard to the comments of the House leader of the Conservative Party, I found it interesting that he painted a picture of terrible things having happened here and a tremendous erosion of respect for the House. I want to know from the member why it is acceptable to him, then, to simply receive a motion to refer this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee. It seems like a pretty wimpy motion to me if this was such a serious matter.

Does the member not think that maybe there should be some more specificity to the motion? Perhaps he would comment on whether the motion should be amended to provide some direction or some timeframe which might reflect the urgency the House should place on the matter if that is the member's view.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It sounds to me that implicit in the question the member opposite is maybe referring to the fact that the minister might be asked to resign. Or, perhaps we should have the minister come before the House and explain herself and her department in a more open and forthright fashion.

With respect to putting time limits on the matter, I certainly would not take any issue with that. It would be an excellent suggestion to amend the motion so that there was a certain timeframe which the committee could be given to look at the issue and bring it back to the House. Perhaps something could be included in the motion to have the minister come before the bar and explain what took place in this instance.

It seems to be a very deliberate act. As far as my reference to this being something that contributes to the lack of respect for the Chamber, I would only reiterate that is very much the case when there are these transgressions on the part of departments that should know better. Then we hear the government House leader adamantly defend the actions of his government when we know that if he were in opposition he would be doing backflips out of the gallery to condemn the government for the very thing he was trying to defend. This has become very much a practice of cynicism and hypocrisy that we should be trying to avoid if we are to try to raise the standard.

I welcome the suggestion from the hon. member opposite. If he has a specific amendment that he would like to put forward, I would certainly consider it and support it if it were within the spirit of his comments.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear whether the member from the Liberal Party has some suggested amendments which we should consider if he wants to toughen up the motion.

In my understanding of the motion that it was crafted in that way because that is the typical motion brought forward on these issues. When the Speaker rules a prima facie case of contempt we deal with it in that form of a motion to get it into committee to examine all the facts.

There is an opportunity to amend the motion, perhaps in this debate. I do not suppose it will go on all afternoon, but it would be worthwhile in the next few minutes for someone to put forward a date when the matter should be reported back to the House.

I ask the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough what sort of things should be dealt with in committee. Perhaps we should give some direction to the committee on whom it should hear from and give some of the suggestions he thinks should be brought forward on whether we should develop a protocol for all ministers on how they handle the presentation of bills to the House? Perhaps it could be a protocol on the lockup procedure for the media. I also suggest that is perhaps something we should look at.

The member may have some suggestions on who should bring forward testimony, besides the minister who is an obvious one. If he has some ideas on what specifically we should deal with, I think the committee could use that direction at this time. Those are my suggestions, but it would be interesting to hear his suggestions as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that perhaps it is an opportunity to look at some of the broader issues and how we should deal with ministries and departments when this type of action occurs.

There does not appear to be any specific disciplinary action available to the committee or the House for that matter. I am sure the Speaker is certainly very learned in that particular area.

I would very much suggest that the importance in this instance is to have the minister appear before this particular committee, armed and surrounded by her cadre of departmental officials, to explain what exactly they were thinking. This appears to be a very deliberate act. This is not something that leaked out or that was put out under some pretence of it going anywhere else. It was directly an invitation for the media to come and be briefed prior to members of parliament.

I would be very much in favour of having the minister come forward and speak to the specific behaviour of her department on this issue. I would be very much in favour, granted the privilege to do so, to amend the motion that is currently before the House by adding after last line where it states “referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs” that there be a full reporting to the House within three months, and that a witness list be agreed upon by all parties, and would include the Minister of Justice.

[The Speaker]

I think the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough knows he cannot move motions on questions and comments. I am afraid he is out of luck on this one, unless of course the House wishes to give its consent.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay my respects to the Speaker for his ruling on this. I would like to put on the record how this affected me personally. It was indeed my legislative assistant who along with one of his colleagues went over to the room and was denied access. When I got back to my office after my own meetings, I ran into a hornets nest when my LA brought this up to me.

Could the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough tell us how he sees these kinds of shenanigans, shall we put it, affecting the staff? I know the impact it had on my staff when he was sent packing, particularly when he was trying to do the job I pay him to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that the minister in an instance like this probably was more or less putting her department on autopilot and probably did not have a direct hand in what occurred. However, we know through parliamentary responsibility she is the head of that department. She should have been fully informed about a decision that was obviously, as I have stated many times, quite deliberate and meant to keep members of parliament out of the loop on an important bill.

As the hon. member knows, this particular omnibus legislation contained much of the same content of a bill that we saw in the last parliament, but moved in a new direction on some very important factors, including the creation of new amendments to the criminal code pertaining to crimes on the Internet and other important amendments to the legislation.

Why this occurred and how this came about is something that only the minister can answer. That is why I would emphasize the importance that she be given the opportunity to fully answer before the committee when this matter is taken up by it.

Taking your direction, Mr. Speaker, on what just occurred with respect to moving an amendment to this motion, I would ask for unanimous consent that we add to the text of the motion in the last line “with a full reporting to the House by June 1, 2001 and that a witness list include the Minister of Justice”.

[The Speaker:.]

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough to move this amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it most unfortunate that the government did not approve this amendment, which would have given us an extremely important deadline, that is June 2001. I realize that the government is not interested in clarifying these rules, considering how it has been operating since 1993.

I will be brief. First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Provencher for his vigilance, since this is a very important issue and it is not the first time that the Department of Justice has operated in that fashion. As we have seen in the past, this did not work for either the minister or the system, since there were all sorts of erroneous interpretations circulating before a bill would even be introduced in the House. This is most unfortunate.

Second, I wish to salute your openness, Mr. Speaker, and to thank you for having entertained this question of privilege, since this is a very important part of our work as members of parliament. We must have all the tools and be on the same footing, so to speak, as all other parliamentarians. The way the minister operates, we could never be on the same footing as her.

I do hope all parliamentarians will give this issue the attention it deserves. I also hope the minister will testify and answer questions. I believe the whole issue has to do with the fact that the minister does not control her department. It may not be a major problem or a problem common to every department, but it exists in the Department of Justice because the minister does not see what is going on in her department. She does not know what is going on and she does not control anything.

I do hope we will shed light on this issue and we can then have more specific rules, so all opposition members can have access to information at the same time as, and even before, the media, so as to be in a position to adequately answer questions and, more important, do their work properly as members of parliament.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to point out that the member who has just spoken is mistaken. The government is interested in this issue and in the committee's taking time to broaden the issues concerning the Speaker's ruling. Frankly, I think the committee must be given enough time to do a thorough job.

The committee, I believe, has done an excellent job in the past on issues of privilege referred to it. I can assure the member that we take this issue seriously and that we would like to vote for the motion right now, get it before the committee and let the committee decide how it wishes to deal with it. If the House is not satisfied with it, then the House can deal with that. However, please let us get it to the committee.

I would ask the member if he would allow the debate to end so that we could all vote for the motion and get it to the committee.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member who has just spoken knows the rules of the House as well as I do. She knows that, just because the government has set a cut off date to force parliamentarians to at least seriously study this whole question as quickly as possible, if on the day before or two days before the cut off date the report is not ready, the House can still allow more time to enable the House to prepare and submit the report effectively.

What I was pointing out to the House is that the opposition wanted to set a date but the government refused. I think the member said it clearly. In rising and trying to justify it, she is slightly wrong.

Let us set a date, for example the first of June, for the amendment. Let us set that as the date. Then, if the committee has not concluded its work, the government will give it more time. At least there is a cut off date to oblige parliamentarians to work on it and especially to oblige the government to raise this whole issue, take a responsible approach in questioning witnesses and table its report as soon as possible. However with no date set this would not be the first matter that got shelved and covered with dust before seeing the light of day.

I think my earlier remarks were quite relevant. Once again the government is refusing to set a cut off date so that the work gets done quickly and parliamentarians have all the tools they need to do an effective job.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleagues who spoke on the decision you have just brought down, for which I too congratulate you, and listening to the chief government whip, the following thought came to me: what we are dealing with here is a government that has made the heaviest use of gag orders to shut up the opposition in all Canadian parliamentary history. For once, the opposition parties are the ones saying “Let us gag the government, for it has the majority in the committees and can do what it wants in them. Let us give it until June 1 to try to find a way of giving us a decision by June 1”.

As my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm has made so clear, committees have come to us in the House on a number of occasions and have asked us for extensions and we have always agreed.

I would like to ask my colleague whether he shares my intuition. I find it cause for concern that the government is hesitant to set June 1 as the date. That suggests to me that it will put it off for a month of Sundays, a treatment it often gives to things it does not care for.

I feel it is extremely regrettable for the whip to have popped up so suddenly from behind the curtains, like a rabbit in hat, with her little no. She was the only one to say it. She had not even had the time to warn the others that they were supposed to be opposed. Here we are without the June 1 date we want. I find that really disgusting.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis knows very well that I have been in the House paying attention to this debate throughout, and that she has erred in transgressing the rules of the House by commenting on the presence or absence of a member in the House.

[The Speaker]

It is certainly contrary to the rules to refer to the presence or absence and especially the absence of a member. Everyone knows that, particularly the hon. member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, who is very familiar with the standing orders of this House.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, who just spoke, is very perceptive.

In fact, this is a government which is far more likely to gag the opposition than itself, so to speak.

Of course this is not a real gag but a deadline to force parliamentarians to submit a report. Once again, if more time is needed the House has always given its agreement in the interests of a comprehensive report.

Even though there is a rule of law which says that there is a presumption of good faith, it looks like bad faith on the part of the government not to want to set a date that would force parliamentarians to work quickly and effectively on this report.

This report must be tabled in the House so that all parliamentarians, regardless of party, government or opposition, have all the tools they need to do their work.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall that when the Liberals were in opposition, they had much less to say in this regard. At the time, the present government House leader had some strong criticism for the Progressive Conservatives when they imposed time allocation or did not wish to introduce a particular bill or tale a particular report.

I suggest they take a look at what they were saying when they were in opposition and be consistent today. Although they form the government, they should ensure that members of the House have all the tools they need to do their work properly.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but I want to put on the record my own support and that of my caucus for the decision announced earlier by the Chair. I am not a lawyer, but I guess when the judge agrees one tends to say it was a very good decision. However, I think it was in this case. I think it restores some faith in this institution and, as other deputies have said, allows us to be on an equal footing and to bring legislation forward in this place as opposed to our learning about it after the fact.

The other point being debated on the floor is the notion that the Minister of Justice should be coming before the House as part of a witness list. There too the New Democratic Party very much wants to be on record as associating itself in favour of that kind of action. The chief government whip is saying no, that she is not in support of it, and I think that is unfortunate.

We have had a very good ruling this afternoon. I recall that when this was first raised last week by the member for Provencher, the House leader for the New Democratic Party talked about an earlier time in parliament when it was automatic that legislation was brought here, debated here and announced here, and that the media got their news from here as opposed to it being the other way around. The House leader also talked about the erosion we have seen in the House of Commons for members of parliament over time.

I think the ruling of the Speaker in today's judgment is a sound one and will help to restore parliamentary democracy in this place. I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on that ruling and look forward to a continuing debate and more real and meaningful debate in the House of Commons.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments. First, I commend you, Sir, for the promise you made when you contested the office of Speaker. You said at that time that you would introduce into this place a dimension of respect, a dimension of freshness and a new approach, and you have done that in your ruling here this afternoon. I thank you for that and I recognize the contribution you are making to the operation of the House.

I also appeal to all members in the House to recognize the good intention of the suggested amendment that we put a timeline on this matter. If we really care about what is happening here, we will deal with this in a time that is appropriate and in a time that will help the House.

I know all members on that committee and have a lot of respect for them, as I do for you, Mr. Speaker. I would simply like to suggest that we pass the motion, honour you for it, take it to committee, and then expect the committee to act within the intention and the spirit of the discussion here this afternoon so that it is dealt with expeditiously and comes forward in time for it to have a meaningful impact on the operation of the House.