Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a notice sent out yesterday by the Standing Committee on Health. The notice misrepresented the role of the House in a way that seriously maligns parliament.
The notice sent out by the health committee indicated that its business for the day was Bill C-53. Bill C-53 was up for debate yesterday and had not yet passed second reading when the notice was sent. The committee chairman had presupposed that the House would pass Bill C-53. While that ended up being the outcome, the committee notice to study Bill C-53 should not have been sent out until the House had made the decision to refer the bill to committee.
I refer the House to a ruling from October 10, 1989. Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on a similar matter regarding an advertisement put out by parliament before parliament approved it. The Speaker quoted the then member for Windsor West, the recent Deputy Prime Minister, as saying:
--when this advertisement...says in effect there will be a new tax on January 1...the advertisement is intended to convey the idea that Parliament has acted on it because that is, I am sure, the ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this is finally adopted and comes into effect. That being the case, it is clearly contempt of Parliament because it amounts to a misrepresentation of the role of this House--.
The Speaker's comment in 1989 ruled that the effect of presupposing a decision of the House may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public.
We can draw a parallel between the 1989 case and the recent notice sent out by the health committee. If the committee gives the impression that Bill C-53 received second reading before the vote took place at second reading then its notice conveys the idea, as the former member for Windsor West argued, that the House adopted Bill C-53 at second reading since that would be Canadians' normal understanding of the process. The former Deputy Prime Minister argued that this sort of mockery of the parliamentary system amounts to contempt of parliament.
While the Speaker in 1989 did not rule a prima facie question of privilege he did say:
--I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.
Mr. Speaker Fraser was in a quandary. He was not sure on which side he should rule so he gave a warning. He warned that next time he would rule on the side of granting a prima facie question of privilege.
This sort of thing has happened many times since those words were spoken. In the last two parliaments the Speaker had a tendency to look the other way. He did so when the Minister for International Trade sent out a press release announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group when no such group existed. He did so when the government announced the appointment of the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation before there was legislation to set up the foundation.
A matter was raised by hon. member for Prince George--Peace River regarding the Canadian Wheat Board on February 3, 1998. Another matter was raised on October 28, 1997 regarding the Department of Finance. These complaints headed other warnings.
On November 6, 1997 the Speaker said:
--the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department...are of some concern...This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices...I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it.
These are strong words but such words cannot always be effective in defending the authority of this House. The fact that this behaviour continues undeterred demonstrates that the House must get serious.
Thankfully in this parliament the Speaker has taken these matters seriously. I will comment on two of those cases because they help to establish a pattern involving a particular minister.
Bill C-53 is sponsored by the same minister who was charged with contempt for leaking the contents of Bill C-15 before it was tabled in the House. When the Minister of Health was minister of justice, she was at it again with Bill C-36. Bill C-53 represents the minister's third offence, the latest tragedy to be preformed from her trilogy of contempt.
If the House is to function with authority and dignity then it must be respected, especially by its own members.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at which time I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.