Debates of March 19th, 2002

Privilege

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I am again experiencing some difficulty with regard to the same principle of not being able to do indirectly what we cannot directly do in the House. All members would recognize that if a member accused another member of “deliberately misleading”, he or she would be asked to withdraw.

I know it is difficult and I know the member is doing everything possible to meet the spirit and the letter of the rules of the House by naming the portfolios and the riding, but I hope we can avoid that in what remains in the particular correspondence or press release that is being read.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Just two short quotes left, Mr. Speaker. It is very difficult when four members of the official opposition brought before the House a claim of breach of privilege when we cannot read into the record the press release that the claim is based upon. I am sure you can understand that.

The last two paragraphs of the press release state:

The evidence is now very clear that [the] Minister [Minister of National Defence] deliberately--

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know how else to say this to get it on record.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has, as best as I possibly can, shown some latitude. I obviously did not interrupt the first time it was stated but I would hope that we could avoid that same charge that has already been laid and has been part of a press release, I believe, by the hon. member and some of his colleagues using the words “deliberately misled”.

However, I must state again that it is not our practice nor do we ever accept it. It is already on the record. I would hope we could avoid that in the remaining paragraph or two that the hon. member for Lakeland might have.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to do anything to offend you.

The last two paragraphs are as follows:

“The evidence is now very clear that [the] Minister [Minister of National Defence...misled the House of Commons and Canadians”, said [the member from Lakeland, the Canadian Alliance defence critic]. “Of course the Vice-Admiral would give the Minister a full briefing--our military personnel are thorough and professional at all times. It's a shame that the Minister chose to [mislead] Canadians. And it's sad that we had to pull Mr. Maddison away from his important duties to show that the deception was indeed intentional”.

[The] Alliance Deputy House Leader [the member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke] added, “I hope that [the] Minister [Minister of National Defence] will now be willing to come forward and admit that his misleading statements were indeed intentional. Now that his explanation has been contradicted, the right thing to do would be to admit that he...misled the House of Commons, and Canadians”.

That was the press release upon which these allegations were made. I appreciate being allowed read it for the record because it was important.

The Liberals were successful in using their majority to shut the committee down and to kill the democratic process but I will not allow them to intimidate or stop me from voicing my views or the views of my constituents. I have taken an oath as a member of parliament and have an obligation to protect my freedom of speech and to protect the freedom of speech of my constituents. I think the member is interfering in that right.

The behaviour on the part of the parliamentary secretary is the type that has marginalized this House and its committees over time. This government has mused and mouthed words that it wants parliamentary reform. We hear that in here all the time. However, until it actually backs its words up with appropriate behaviour, its lofty pledges concerning parliament will be dumped into the trash bin of history.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister on Thursday, February 28.

First, I ask for the Speaker's indulgence in the remarks that I am about to make. I have had a considerable amount of time to reflect on the events surrounding the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister which have led to the question of privilege by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

While I appreciate that my comments are to be directed to the matter at hand and not debate, the seriousness of the issue at hand demands a full discussion as the health of our parliamentary institution is at stake.

Let us examine what was said outside the House and how it was said. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is objecting to a media release that was posted on the Canadian Alliance website. Specifically, he gives the following quote attributed to me:

I hope that [the Minister of National Defence] will now be willing to come forward and admit that his misleading statements were indeed intentional. Now that his explanation has been contradicted, the right thing to do would be to admit that he deliberately misled the House of Commons, and Canadians.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I want the record to show that I have indeed been very careful in not seeking out media interviews or issuing any media releases from my office on the subject before the committee.

On the other hand, my colleagues on the government side have had freedom of speech outside the House when referring to committee proceedings.

It is with much consideration then that I look at this question of privilege, particularly when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister makes the comment that he is uncomfortable with the timing of his question of privilege.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister would be more uncomfortable if he would be required to confirm to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House that at precisely the same time he was rising in the House on his question of privilege, the Prime Minister's deputy minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council, delivered a letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the member for Peterborough.

The letter accuses me, in the words of the Prime Minister's deputy, of alleging that the Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, and I quote the letter:

--that the Deputy Clerk...may have intentionally misled Parliamentarians with respect to the deployment of the JTF-2 on a military operation outside Canada.

By way of explanation, the Prime Minister's deputy then quoted the Chief of the Defence Staff, as if the Deputy Clerk himself were not able to answer on his own when in fact he is counsel, security and intelligence co-ordinator for the Privy Council.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you dismiss this question of privilege on the grounds that it is an attempt to intimidate a member of parliament for the questions asked in a committee of this House looking into the misleading statements that were made by the Minister of National Defence.

I believe this point to be of such a serious nature that I will now read into the record the relevant sections from the Prime Minister's deputy's letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as well as my response to the chair. It states:

I must also express to you my strong concern about the allegation by the Member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke--

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need to ask how this is relevant to the question of whether the member did or did not make certain statements outside the House. I do not see how this is relevant to whether she did or did not.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know from past experience that the matter of relevance can be stretched a great distance. However, in most cases, if not all times, we get back to the essence of the subject matter. Sometimes we need a little bit more time to make the case.

The Chair has demonstrated the same latitude to both sides of the House. I would ask members to bear with the Chair and give colleagues an opportunity to make their case and then we can come to a ruling at some point in time.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I promise in the end of my statements to show my comments now relate to the matter at hand.

I am quoting from the letter from Mr. Cappe, the Clerk of the Privy Council, to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs. He states:

I must also express to you my strong concern about the allegation by the Member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke that the Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Richard Fadden, may have intentionally misled Parliamentarians with respect to the deployment of JTF-2 on a military operation outside Canada.

I will now quote my letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in response to the allegation of the deputy of the Prime Minister's. It states:

As a Member of Parliament for Her Majesty's Official Opposition, my constitutional role is clearly defined to scrutinize the actions of government in an atmosphere of professionalism.

A careful perusal of the unedited transcripts of our committee show at no point did I use the word “intentional” in reference to deputy clerk Fadden's testimony. It was a statement of the facts given to our committee on this point by Fadden and certainly if he was in error on a key historical fact as to whether or not Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) had been deployed outside Canada in the past, then he might have been in error on other points. I was not aware that questioning the reliability of a witness, regardless of who they are, in that manner is inappropriate.

I believe you recognized this when you acknowledged that I kept to parliamentary language in my questioning.

It would seem that it is Mr. Cappe who is drawing an inference from my remarks and stating it as a given fact in his letter when he writes “intentionally misleading”. I draw your attention to the actual exchange:

(Myself):

As part of the combined force sent to Rwanda, elements of the JTF2 were also deployed. Given those facts, would you not agree that your deputy clerk has misinformed the committee?

(The Clerk of the Privy Council):

Did he mislead the committee? I don't think he did it intentionally, if that was your inference.

It is clear from this exchange and the rest of my testimony that at no point did I use the words “intentionally” or “misled”. Curiously, Mr. Cappe is not denying that Mr. Fadden may have misled the committee, only that he did not do so intentionally. In fact it would appear that Mr. Cappe was drawing an inference from my use of the word “misinformed” even though I pointed out that Mr. Fadden had not qualified his words when he repeated that the JTF2 had never been deployed outside Canada for any reason previously.

As the most senior political appointment to the federal public service by the Prime Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council does have a duty and a responsibility to maintain the professional integrity of all servants. Equally so, I am sure you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that it would be inappropriate for a public servant, even if it was unintentional, to suggest limits on parliamentarians, certainly when it comes to what is appropriate in a parliamentary committee.

Unfortunately in my experience this is not the first time the Privy Council, through the counsel of security and intelligence co-ordinator, has found it necessary to write to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to clarify comments to our committee recently. Mr. Fadden wrote to our committee chair on January 2 of this year regarding the contempt charges against the Minister of Justice in the premature release of the information outside the House on Bill C-36.

This evidence demonstrates that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary is not alone in this campaign of intimidation. The Prime Minister's ministry, the Privy Council, has been fully engaged in this campaign of intimidation. After the Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council appeared before the committee, and after I questioned the Prime Minister's deputy, the Liberal member for Toronto--Danforth openly threatened to fire witnesses who contradicted the Minister of National Defence.

These are hardly the actions of people concerned about the dignity of parliament. These actions themselves should be considered contempt. From the procedural book written by the member for Scarborough--Rouge River, The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records , at page 78 it references a resolution passed by the U.K. House from March 8, 1688.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I hope you will find that the Chair has been patient. However, in fairness to the House, I have a suspicion that maybe there is a fair amount in that text remaining and yet another colleague to be heard and possibly others. As I stated earlier with regard to relevancy, I have tried to demonstrate some latitude but I would hope that in the next minutes we could focus on the actual, if I may use the term charge or more appropriately the question of privilege. It would be very helpful to the Chair and to the House.

Without taking anything away from the member's ability to state her case, could the Chair ask for as much co-operation as possible without minimizing the ability of the member to state her own case in this very important matter.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of the government, its track record of intimidation and ruthlessness are cause for concern. You must take these factors into consideration in your role as defender of the minority against the tyranny of this majority.

I will give you, Mr. Speaker, another example as to why you should not allow this matter to proceed.

I participated in three contempt charges against a minister at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Despite the testimony, the Liberal majority on the committee failed to take any action to curtail ministers from making a mockery of parliament and members of parliament. They did not invoke any consequences to the former minister of justice with respect to her briefing the media on Bill C-15 ahead of members and before the bill was tabled in the House. They let her off the hook entirely the second time when Bill C-36 was also leaked to the media.

It appears that the outcome of the question of privilege involving the minister of defence is heading in the same direction of a Liberal cover-up as a result of public comments made in advance of the Standing Committee and Procedure and House Affairs report to the House.

We have witnessed over the years the persuasive powers of the Prime Minister in directing the Liberal majority in the House. I cannot accept that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary has been permitted to pursue this question of privilege if the government were not concerned that the truth could become known to the Canadian people. This is obviously just an intimidation tactic.

My colleagues have already made the point that the use of words such as deliberately misleading outside the House, under these circumstances, is perfectly in order and does not amount to contempt. No statements contributed to me and my colleagues in any way tarnish the reputation of the minister of defence. Public debate has already passed comment on the competence of the minister.

The point I do want to make is the fact that there is a real attempt on behalf of the government members and the Prime Minister's deputy minister to intimidate opposition members. In this situation, the only protection afforded to us is your decision not to allow the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary to move his motion because once the motion is moved, our fate is in the hands of the Liberal majority, which is controlled by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is bent on defending his minister at all costs. His determination and ruthlessness in doing so has no bounds.

We had an example the other week, during the election of the chairman of the finance committee. The government whip was threatening opposition members and staff, as well as government members, to get the Prime Minister's choice for chairman elected.

It would be irresponsible to hand over to the majority Liberal government the fate of opposition members whose only crime is that we were being effective members of the opposition. That is what you are charged with protecting. In this scenario, that means you should sooner as opposed to later rule that this matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

From a communications point of view, bringing this matter up in the way the parliamentary secretary has done, has been calculated as doing less damage than a positive finding in the committee. If the actions of the defence minister embarrasses the government, then why is it inviting more debate in the House? If it is worried about hearing the words deliberately misleading associated with the minister of defence, then I point out that because of this question of privilege I have heard those words again several times.

I looked at the Hansard from February 28, when the parliamentary secretary first brought up this matter. The words deliberately misleading were mentioned at least six times in the short debate on the question of privilege of that day. I would not be surprised if it is repeated a few more times before we complete today.

Maybe now the parliamentary secretary gets it. The issue is before parliament in a formal way, as a formal charge. Therefore, we can say the D word and the M word. We are not fooling anyone by not saying them. Everyone knows what the issue is.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the parliamentary secretary, I stand by my statement. I will not be intimidated. This I do to protect our democratic institution and the rights of all Canadians.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of participating here this afternoon, but I was listening to the member's remarks in my office. The member suggested that I had instructed or wished that witnesses would lie, when in fact that was not the case.

What I did say was that anybody who worked for me who tried to publicly embarrass me on national television, I would dismiss them. In no way, shape or form did I ever suggest that the deputy chief of defence staff should lie.

I would ask the member to please withdraw her remarks that I suggested that those people lie. I have served in the House--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Respectfully to the hon. member for Toronto--Danforth, I believe we are engaging in debate. I do not want to hear any more about that matter.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have served in the House for 14 years and you are aware of my high regard for both you and the chair. I do not believe it is right that it be left to stand on the record that a member can refer to me as lying in the House. I do not find that acceptable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Respectfully again to the hon. member for Toronto--Danforth, with regard to the specifics of the matter raised by him, I will review the blues to be certain as to what might have been said.

I do not believe, in my limited experience from the chair, that I could ask a member to withdraw something that was said about someone else. I want to be sure exactly what the transcripts say before I make any ruling or follow up on the point of order raised. Upon review of the blues, if necessary, I will return to the House to continue on that particular matter.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have several comments. My colleague read a speech which she is checking to determine exactly what she said and we will get back to you on that.

Through no fault of the Canadian Alliance, this was brought up at a time when we were debating the circumstances around the Kyoto agreement. Would the House be prepared to give unanimous consent to allow us to continue that debate for the time lost as a result of bringing this question of privilege forward. It was not at our request.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I advise the House that we will take appropriate time during the government debates to use its allotted times in concurrence motions and so on. We will get our time back on this whether government members like it or not. They will have to pay for the time.

This is a serious accusation placed before three of my colleagues which cannot go without action, so I will recommend a motion here today that perhaps will fix the issue. It is time that perhaps we take this issue to a committee and study it. We will also be insisting on a various number of witnesses, which I will outline a little later. We have no problem at all in bringing this to a committee and having that motion brought up.

My contribution to this question of privilege will point out a few flaws in the argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. The member's complaint has identified press releases and statements made outside the House by certain members of the opposition regarding the minister of defence, namely that the minister of defence deliberately misled the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has not demonstrated how his privileges have been breached by statements made by other members about another member. On page 247 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada it states:

In the event that another Member wished to have these same matters debated, the matters would have to be brought forward on notice...

On the other hand, the Minister of National Defence being the so-called victim could raise this matter with you, Mr. Speaker, and seek your opinion on whether he has a prima facie question of privilege which, as you know, would allow him to move a motion without notice and have that motion take precedence over all other business. It is not up to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to bring the grievances of the Minister of National Defence to this House.

It was suggested by the member for Okanagan--Shuswap on February 28 at page 9389 of

Hansard:

As the member across the way has stated, this issue is being dealt with in committee. I would think that is where it should be dealt with first.

If the member were to demonstrate how these statements are offensive to the committee he is free to do so, but I fail to see how these words would be offensive to the committee when these words describe the mandate of the committee's study.

On February 28 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister claimed on page 9388 of Hansard :

...even though when a member brings a question of privilege, at that particular time and during that motion...the member is allowed to use a term like misleading the House. That language is not allowed in parliament under normal circumstances and the fact that this charge has been made in the House and referred to committee I would suggest does not give licence for members to be repeating these things outside the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would argue the very opposite is true. By virtue of a legitimate procedure of this House a charge against the minister of defence of misleading this House has been laid. A decision of the House has sent that charge to committee. Because of these decisions the question of whether or not the minister deliberately or inadvertently misled this House is in the public domain.

The member for Lakeland and the member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke did not put it there. While the member for Portage--Lisgar initiated this debate he did so legitimately as he described earlier.

Mr. Speaker, once you put the motion to the House it was this House that put the issue of the minister's reputation in the public domain and on the records of the House and of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. My colleagues have been invited to and have a duty to comment on this issue.

On page 86 of Marleau and Montpetit Speaker Fraser is quoted as saying on April 14, 1987:

“The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment.”

I can see that the reputation of the minister of defence is damaged, but it is damaged by his own actions and the decision of this House and the investigation presently underway by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs into the conflicting statements he made in the House. The damage to his reputation is not unjust. This House has the right to question a minister's actions and the standing committee has an obligation to question the minister's intent.

Mr. Speaker, if you review the comments made by my Alliance colleagues and cited by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, you will note that they never detract from the question before the standing committee. They do not introduce any new charge or accusation that would further tarnish the reputation of the minister of defence.

For example, the press release dated February 26 cited by the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary states:

It is clear that Minister of Defence Art Eggleton deliberately misled the House of Commons when he changed his story about when he knew about the full details of capture and turnover of prisoners.

One of the tasks of the committee is to determine whether or not the minister deliberately misled the House. Therefore this statement is a fair comment considering the committee's mandate and the debate emerging in and out of committee. The parliamentary secretary read more of the press release into the record basically saying the same thing but implicating other members. He attributes the following statement to the member for Lakeland:

The evidence is now very clear that the Minister of Defence deliberately misled the House of--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. Again, I would ask the co-operation of the hon. member. I know we have already put that phrase on the record knowing that in the House the Chair would not accept one member from one side of the House to charge another with that type of action. If we could at best blank the word deliberate, it would be helpful.

I know it is difficult when we have taken the time to prepare text to respond to a question of privilege but I do ask for the utmost co-operation possible from the hon. member.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Most editorials and Canadians concluded the same thing and have the right to grapple with the question and consider the evidence presented in an open public meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The parliamentary secretary, in an effort to cast his web further and implicate the member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, cited her statement:

I hope that the Minister of Defence will now be willing to come forward and admit that his misleading statements were indeed intentional. Now that his explanation has been contradicted, the right thing to do would be to admit that he...misled the House of Commons, and Canadians.

I did not use the word deliberately, Mr. Speaker.

All of these statements address the issues of the question of privilege raised by the member for Portage--Lisgar. These issues are legitimately being considered by a committee of the House in an open forum. The reputation of the Minister of National Defence in this matter cannot be attributed to the statements made by the member for Lakeland, the member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke or the member Portage--Lisgar.

It is the House that brought the question of the minister's capacity as a member into public view. In the public and parliamentary debate words such as deliberately misleading are being used.

Words are very important to communicate and the proper words are essential to do it right. If someone is being fined for spitting on the sidewalk words like spitting and sidewalk must be used. If one were trying to determine a murder case then the m word must be used in order not to send someone away for 25 years for poor hygiene and bad manners.

Further evidence that the question of privilege of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister had no legs emerged from the testimony of Joseph Maingot when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as an expert witness. On Thursday, February 28 at 3.30 p.m. the member for Halifax West asked Mr. Maingot:

What is the responsibility of members of the committee looking at a question of privilege, a charge of contempt in terms of not prejudging the matter? If they make comments indicating that they have prejudged the matter, what is your view of that?

Mr. Maingot responded:

Well, that's just human nature I think. It's human nature to do that sort of thing, but then eventually you sit down and look at all the facts and decide as a body, putting everything together and even though comments have been made by members, it's still a question of deciding, of looking at everything that's been said and done and you govern yourselves according to your own integrity.

So it is human nature that the members would comment and draw conclusions on the testimony of the committee. I submit they did so responsibly and I venture a guess that public opinion is on their side.

It is not uncommon for politicians to raise public support for their point of view. In fact, some Liberal members have commented in the media on the very same issue. While they have taken a different view, their comments drew attention to the issue. The issue being whether or not the Minister of National Defence is guilty of contempt for his misleading statements. We cannot pretend that this is not the issue by restricting members' use of certain words.

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention a similar case made to the House not that long ago. On Monday, December 10, 2001, the hon. member for New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby referred to statements of the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration quoted in a newspaper article.

He argued that the statements constituted a personal attack on him and an offence against the dignity of parliament. The minister suggested that the member's conduct in parliament was treasonous. The Speaker ruled that he had no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one member against another. The Speaker could not find that a prima facie question of privilege existed.

I suggest that there is no prima facie question of privilege in this case either.

For the record, I do not condone those members who would make unfounded accusations against another member inside or outside of the House. I would not expect members to send out press releases containing libellous and unjust statements against a colleague. That would be wrong.

If we examined all the prima facie cases of contempt involving members making statements about another member outside the House we would discover that the statements were not based on any formal charge but a personal opinion expressed by a member that could be considered damaging to another member's reputation.

The reference made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister from Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 9389 of Hansard addresses my point. I looked at the Speaker's ruling associated with that reference. It is from June 4 and 5, 1964 at pages 3919-3920 and 3971 and 4139 to 4141 of Hansard .

That specific case had nothing to do with comments made of a member charged with contempt by the House. All precedents cited in the ruling did not involve statements made of a member who had been formally charged with an offence by the House. The reference the parliamentary secretary attempts to use in Joseph Maingot's book addresses statements made by members that were unfounded.

The charges against the minister of defence which led some members to comment publicly are not unfounded. They are by virtue of your decision, Mr. Speaker, prima facie. There is enough evidence against the minister of defence to give these charges priority consideration by the House and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The discussion of these charges by the committee may very well lead to the conclusion that the minister deliberately misled the House. It would be impossible to come to that conclusion without being allowed to use the words necessary to describe the conclusion.

It is perfectly in order for the members for Lakeland, Portage--Lisgar and Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke to use the words they used to describe the legitimate charges against the minister of defence.

I challenge the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to make the case against these members. Unlike the government we have nothing to hide. While I have just made the case that a prima facie question of privilege does not exist, this does not preclude the House from considering this matter or sending it to committee.

On page 270 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada it references a Speaker's ruling from June 19, 1959:

“In finding that a question of privilege of the House is not prima facie...I am making a procedural decision the effect of which will not prevent the further discussion by the House of the matters in issue.”

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that it is fully in order for the House to deal with the motion upon your decision.

The motion we would like to see is that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs undertake a study into the allegations made against the member for Lakeland, the member for Portage--Lisgar and the member for Renfrew--Nipissing-Pembroke by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and that the witnesses include but not be limited to the following persons: the Minister of National Defence, various editorial boards, various officers from the national defence department, and witnesses from the PMO and the PCO. Let us not forget we should have this televised. We are quite open to that. If the hon. member on the other side thinks we were the least bit intimidated about this he has another thing coming.

I reiterate in the House that because this has been brought up by the government it has cost us now well over an hour, probably two hours of debate and this will cost the government double time in its debates.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to tell Canadian Alliance members that I have no intention of unduly extending my presentation, so as not to penalize them further on their opposition day on a topic very important to the Bloc Quebecois, namely the Kyoto protocol.

However, before beginning my presentation, I need some clarification from the Chair. I would like to know if it is allowed to mention the name a member of parliament when that name is included in an article. When we quote from a newspaper article in which the name of a member of parliament is mentioned, are we allowed to quote it verbatim?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The rule has always been that we cannot do indirectly what we are not allowed to do directly in the House.

Therefore, if we have a quote from a newspaper article or other, we must be very careful not to repeat words that would normally be deemed to be unparliamentary in the context of a debate here, in the House of Commons. This is the best advice I can give to the hon. member, and I hope that he will comply with these rules.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the question of privilege raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is a clear case. There are three colleagues involved in this question of privilege on which you need to make a ruling. While taking nothing away from the presentations by the other Canadian Alliance members, I was particularly sensitive to, and appreciative of, the approach taken by the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar in his presentation.

We must acknowledge that there is a direct connection between the fact that the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar himself has submitted a question of privilege concerning the minister of defence, a question currently under study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on which I sit, and the question raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, you have before you a clear case of a member who is the victim of intimidation—I would be tempted to go still further and say harassment—by another colleague. He has merely made use of a parliamentary privilege to which he is entitled as an elected member of this House.

I am certain that you will give this question all due attention and will examine it with the care which we are accustomed to seeing you use on such matters, and which we are entitled to expect from a Speaker.

In connection with the questions raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister regarding a release that I have no intention of rereading—to avoid doing indirectly what cannot be done directly—and the comments made by colleagues outside of the House, through a press release, I would respectfully submit that certain government members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs do this.

Allow me to quote the member for Halifax West, from an article published in the Globe and Mail on February 28, 2002, entitled “Eggleton Committee concludes inquiry”, signed by Allison Dunfield. In this article, the member for Halifax West is quoted. This quote is placed in quotation marks. Therefore, he uttered the words; he cannot therefore deny having spoken them. The reporter quotes him with quotation marks. The member for Halifax West told a CBC Newsworld reporter, and I quote, “I think it has become a huge bit of a circus”.

The member for Halifax West should also then be cited for a question of privilege for having commented the issue outside the House.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would like to thank you for the numerous times that you prevented the members of the Canadian Alliance from repeating the word “deliberately”. When we drafted the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs this week, the Liberal majority said to us repeatedly “The notice of motion, the order of reference do not mention the word 'deliberately'”. You yourself mentioned that if we use the word “deliberately” in reference to comments made by a colleague, it would be considered unparliamentary.

This explains why, in the order of reference for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the word “deliberately” does not appear. We have our work cut out for us.

I thank you for the countless times you said that the word “deliberately” needed not be considered. This will be extremely useful when we consult the blues and prepare our report.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you because these issues are not easy issues to preside over. I think you have allowed a certain amount of latitude as we are trying to work through this issue.

I feel I need to point out a couple of key points. One is that the issue of hearing this today was not a decision by the government. It was a decision by the Speaker. If opposition members have a problem with that I suggest they take it up with the Speaker's office. I brought this issue on February 28 because under the rules of the House I had an obligation to bring it to the House at the earliest opportunity and that is what I determined to be my earliest opportunity. I would ask if the issue of timing could be addressed in the ruling, because it has been brought up numerous times that this issue somehow was not raised properly. I think if we could clear that up it would go a long way to moving this discussion forward.

Second, in no way and at no time did I ever try to imply that opposition members could not do their job. My entire point deals with the language that they used, not their right to do their job.

I would conclude by reading one paragraph from Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , at page 254. I think this is demonstrated and reinforced by the fact that the opposition was not allowed to read the press release here. It states:

Language spoken during a Parliamentary proceeding that impugns the integrity of members would be unparliamentary and a breach of order contrary to the Standing Orders. But not a breach of privilege.

If it is spoken in the House.

Spoken outside the House by a Member the same language reflecting on the Member's Parliamentary capacity would be considered contempt of the House.

That was the issue I was raising. I think it is a very narrow and simple issue. The opposition members have confirmed they made the statement.

Mr. Speaker, the ruling is in your hands and I look forward to your judgment.