House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was disease.

Topics

Sex Offender Information Registration ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Independent

Ghislain Lebel Independent Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this motion.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Sex Offender Information Registration ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the amendment lost.

The House resumed from April 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-280, an act to amend the Criminal Code (selling wildlife), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-280 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion lost.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of parliamentary privilege this afternoon. I would like to seek your guidance about a matter that concerns the limits and procedures concerning a member's ability to speak and carry out his or her duties in a committee.

We have a situation right now where our member for Winnipeg Centre has been compelled to speak for more than 12 hours at the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee in an effort to prevent a procedural motion from being approved that would seek to limit a member's time in discussing any clause, amendment, motion or matter before the committee.

I know that in committees it is common practice that when we hear witnesses there is usually an agreement to limit the amount of time because we have to hear witnesses. However, in this case it is a procedural question that would limit a member discussing an aspect of a bill before a committee.

Equally of concern to us, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this matter is taking place in camera. There is nothing in the matter under discussion that could in any way be characterized or considered as an in camera matter. The matter is not dealing with personnel, property matters or security matters. It is a matter of procedure that would by tradition I believe be normal practice to be in public.

It seems very bizarre to us that a committee would operate in this way in a manner that is counterproductive to the parliamentary practice of having open and reasonable debate without unreasonable restraints.

We know that the government, for example, can bring in time allocation on a bill in the House. However, it seems that in the very nature of a committee, it is a place where members work in a way that they can speak, they can go through a bill, they can have discussion.

We are very concerned about the precedent that is being set in this matter which is now taking place.

I would ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, to be given to the House and committees about this matter. I would hope that you would affirm the practice to only go in camera where there is a shown necessity to do so and to affirm the right of a member to participate in a committee without imposed restraints that limit that member's ability to carry out his or her duties and responsibilities.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

3:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that at page 128 of Marleau and Montpetit on the Speaker ruling on such matters at committee it states:

Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

3:35 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the last intervener brought an interesting point as well.

The hon. member rose on a question of privilege. I believe the first thing she raised was the fact that the hon. member was compelled, or some such, to speak for 13 hours. I have no idea who is guilty of compelling anyone to speak for 13 hours, but I hope that at least that point is investigated. It sounds like cruel and unusual punishment, as someone across the way is indicating as we speak.

More to the point and perhaps more seriously, I understand that the committee has been dealing with whatever it is it is dealing with in camera. Obviously I am not going to reveal the contents of it because it is in camera. I understand that our parliamentary procedures are such that when someone is speaking in camera and someone wants it moved out of there to be discussed otherwise, such a motion can be put before the committee.

It has not been adduced so far that such a motion was put, let alone how it was disposed of, let alone whether it was defeated by the committee. Even if all that had been done and if the committee had refused it, the committee has not yet reported to the House for the Speaker to make the determination of whether that process, which we do not know if it occurred or not, was administered properly. It is a little premature to put this point before the House.

However, I do think that on the point of someone being compelled to speak for 13 hours, that matter in itself deserves to be verified by the Speaker. Finally, if someone did commit such an act, urged or compelled by whomever, I do believe that we have precedents in the Speaker's ruling on the Blenkarn issue of some years ago and other applications thereafter, whereby the committee can also deal with such matters. In any case, I do not believe the issue has yet been reported to the House.

Surely all hon. members on that committee would not feel compelled to speak ever again for anywhere near that amount of time. I would hope that they would deal with the business that is before the committee. Several citizens are expecting us to do just that rather than being compelled to do that which was described earlier.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the openness of the government to a motion to take that committee out of in camera on what it is considering now. We hope that perhaps the committee would be open to such a motion.

The fact remains, and I think this is what you need to consider, that time allocation is not something that should take place behind closed doors. If the government majority on a committee wants to impose closure, they should be able to do that in the clear light of day where they can be accountable to the public for the way they are trying to shut down the work of that committee.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

3:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Mr. Speaker, very briefly and maybe to assist you in your decision which I am not sure even falls under your gambit here, but whether we have to listen to somebody speak for 13 hours on one hand, or whether these people feel that they have to be compelled to speak in order to get a fair ruling, perhaps this says something about what goes on in our committees.

At the present time, the modernization committee is trying to improve work in parliament generally, including trying to find ways to make committees more practical and more reasonable for members. Maybe there is an avenue where we can clarify some of the problems we are presently experiencing.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

3:40 p.m.

The Speaker

I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for having raised the matter. I also thank the hon. member for Athabasca, the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona, the hon. member for St. John's West, and the government House leader for their contributions.

Having heard all the submissions that have been made to me, my initial impression is that the question of privilege appears to raise two issues. First. whether or not the proceedings in the committee being held in camera are properly being held in camera. I think that was one of the arguments put to me if I am putting it in the correct form. Second, whether the committee had the power to adopt a motion that limited the right of members of the committee to speak on issues other than interviewing witnesses.

In both respects, in my view on its face, this is a matter over which the committee is master of its own proceedings. As the hon. member for Athabasca so ably pointed out, Speakers have consistently ruled that they do not interfere in matters that are before a committee where the committee is master of its own proceedings and has the power to make a decision on it, unless the committee makes a report to the House, and then the Speaker may or may not rule on some aspects of the report.

In this case, it seems to me that the matter at face value appears to be something that falls within the jurisdiction of the committee. It was properly raised in the committee. It should be dealt with in the committee and ruled upon by the chairman of the committee. Of course, his ruling is subject to appeal to members of the committee. Accordingly, I am of the view that on its face, this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the committee.

The hon. government House leader raised the matter of some hon. member being compelled to speak for 13 hours. I gather that was stated by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I was surprised to hear the government House leader express any surprise at that. As I recall, he was chief government whip, and I am sure had it been necessary to compel someone to speak for a period of time, maybe 20 minutes or half an hour on some matter, compellation would have been applied, but there have been more surprising things happen in the House on other occasions.

I will also look into the matter of who might have compelled the unfortunate victim of this lengthy speaking process for 13 hours. The Chair does not know where to begin to look, but I will look into the matter to see if there has been a breach of somebody's privileges. If necessary I will come back to the House on both points, but I suspect it will not be necessary.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

3:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege has to do with something that arose during question period.

Canadian Alliance members of Parliament represent over six million Canadians. During question period today we asked some serious questions respecting the war in Iraq and the status of Canadian soldiers who are serving in that war.

During question period the Minister of National Defence explained that it was his policy essentially to not answer questions from the Canadian Alliance for whatever reason. I assert that this undermines my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament. Canadians are deeply concerned about this issue.

I want it to be noted that when I rose to ask my question, I asked it in an extraordinarily respectful way. The ability of members of Parliament to fulfill their role as MPs is being undermined. In this instance, especially when the matter is as serious as it is, we cannot simply say it is a minister's right to not answer a question. He specifically mentioned the Canadian Alliance by name. When he makes it clear that it is his policy to not answer questions from the official opposition, that clearly undermines not only my privileges but those of all Canadian Alliance members of Parliament.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

3:40 p.m.

Markham Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly leave it to your wisdom as to whether this is a question of privilege. I do not know the answer to that. Perhaps I can give a very brief explanation of my understanding of the facts.

First, the question had been answered by the Prime Minister and I referred the hon. member to the Prime Minister's answer.

Second, I did not say it was a policy of mine not to answer questions from the Canadian Alliance. A colleague of the hon. member had raised the matter of answering questions before and it occurred to me that, not as a policy but on this particular issue of exchange soldiers and ships, I perhaps had a tendency to treat the questions of the Bloc and the NDP somewhat more seriously than the questions from members of the Canadian Alliance. I gave three reasons for that. The first was the fact that the Canadian Alliance agreed with our position on ships and soldiers, unlike the NDP and the Bloc. Second, their argument seemed to hinge on the allegation that we cared less about our soldiers than they did, a point to which I took very strong exception. Third, all of those other arguments having failed, Canadian Alliance members seem to resort to name calling.

That was the gist of my answer.

PrivilegePrivate Members' Business

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I do not think the Chair needs to hear more on this. I know the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is ready to quote Marleau and Montpetit to assist the Chair in the circumstances, but it sounds as though this is a grievance arising out of question period.

I must say that if the policy stated by the minister was not to answer the questions, he did get up and give a response to every question that the hon. member for Medicine Hat asked, and indeed that of all his colleagues who asked a question of the Minister of National Defence.

As the hon. member knows, it may not have been an answer he likes but it was a response and you cannot expect more in question period. That is not news to any hon. member. You get a response and that is the best you can hope for. The hon. member did get a response in this case. It may not have been one he liked but it does not then become a question of privilege. Accordingly, the Chair is not prepared to find there is a question of privilege in this case.

We will move on to the hon. member for St. Albert.

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

3:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Williams Canadian Alliance St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, this was also during question period. The member for York Centre asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration about one of his constituents who was facing deportation and the minister replied quoting the person's name.

I am quoting from Marleau and Montpetit from page 524 under “Reference By Name To Members of the Public”. It states:

Members are discouraged from referring by name to persons who are not Members of Parliament and who do not enjoy parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary circumstances when the national interest calls for the naming of an individual. The Speaker has ruled that Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright slander but from any slur directly or indirectly implied, and has stressed that Members should avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply and defend themselves against innuendo.

We are dealing with someone who is under threat of deportation. Therefore the courts and bureaucracy felt there was some serious problem with this individual who was named.

Also, on page 534 of Marleau and Montpetit, under “The Sub Judice Convention”, it states:

During debate, restrictions are placed on the freedom of Members of Parliament to make reference to matters awaiting judicial decisions in the interests of justice and fair play. Such matters are also barred from being the subject of motions or questions in the House.

It seems to me that there was not only a breach of the rules but there was also an obvious double standard here. When there is a question from this side of the House we are rebuffed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Minister of National Revenue and others by saying that they cannot speak about the matter because it is before the courts. However when a question is raised by that side of the House, the constituent's name is trotted out during question period to use for their own particular benefit.

We cannot therefore have the rules of the House being used for the benefit of one side of the House and being used against the other side of the House. It cannot be.

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

3:45 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, first, it seems to me the reason for this rule is clearly to protect people whose names may be brought forward in a negative way, if we are talking about someone suggesting he or she has done something wrong. That clearly is not the case here. That protection would not be necessary. We were talking about someone who the minister decided to help out obviously in this case.

Second, the member talked about this case complaining that the minister had mentioned someone by name but in fact one of his own members, I think it was the member for Edmonton North, just the other day talked about members of the Canadian military by name during question period. They are complaining about what they are doing themselves.

Finally, he complains that we should not be talking about matters that are before the courts. Clearly this is not a matter that is before the courts so I do not see at all how that can apply in this case.

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

3:50 p.m.

The Speaker

Once again, I thank the hon. member for St. Albert and the parliamentary secretary for their assistance in dealing with this matter.

Clearly this is not a case, as the parliamentary secretary has stated, that was before the courts. This was a case where officials had made a determination and the minister intervened to change the determination. I do not know what the technical procedure was, whether he issued a minister's permit or how this was dealt with, but clearly instructions were issued and the minister indicated that in his answer.

It was also clear from the question that the hon. member for York Centre raised that the issue dealt with a case that was widely reported in the media this morning, including photographs of the person in question and her name in prominent locations in many papers, which the Speaker reads too from time to time without forming any opinion, of course. I did see there was a case of this person mentioned. My recollection is it was the same name that the minister, if I may say it, bandied about in question period.

I find it hard to imagine that the minister, by mentioning the person by name, has breached the convention of the House respecting the use of names. I note also that there is no rule that names cannot be mentioned. Speakers discourage members of Parliament from using names in speeches if they are speaking ill of some other person because, with parliamentary privilege applying to what they say, anything said that is damaging to the reputation or to the individual, the reputation of the individual or the individual is then liable to be published with the cover of parliamentary privilege and the person is unable to bring any action in respect of those claims.

In this case I do not think there is a likelihood of that without in any way prejudging the issue. In my view the minister has not breached the conventions of the House in this case.

Asking about cases that are before the courts and asking about cases that are not are different, and sometimes elicit different responses. However that is not a matter on which the Speaker is able to render a decision. Therefore I do not find there is a point of order here.

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

3:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ted White Canadian Alliance North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, you just mentioned in an earlier ruling that we cannot expect much more from question period than a response. You may like to know that in New Zealand the Speaker actually has the power to determine whether the question has been answered and if not, to order the minister to answer the question.

Would you like that power here, Mr. Speaker? Should we work to get you that power?

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

3:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for North Vancouver knows that the Chair has no opinion in respect of what powers he or she ought to have. That is for the House to decide. The Speaker is a servant of the House and if given certain powers, will administer those powers. If they are taken away, I would not be administering them at all. I am purely a servant in this respect and the hon. member for North Vancouver appreciates the servitude under which the Speaker dwells. I thank him for his understanding on the point.

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During oral question period today I noticed that a question was asked by a member of the governing party. The minister or parliamentary secretary answered with the help of a sheet of paper, making it look oddly similar to a press conference.

According to tradition in this Parliament, questions are asked of ministers who answer them, but they are not supposed to be planted questions. Today it was so obvious that this was the case. I think that you should intervene to put an end to this habit. If the government needs to hold a press conference, then let it do so.

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

3:50 p.m.

The Speaker

It is difficult for the Chair to determine if a document in the hands of a member, whether during a question or an answer, has been prepared in advance. The Standing Orders of the House require that members speak without notes, with the exception of the Minister of Finance bringing down a budget. Reading a speech or a question is, in fact, prohibited. However, as all hon. members are aware, this provision is not enforced by the Chair.

The Chair does not pay much attention to documents in the hands of an hon. parliamentary secretary or an hon. member during a speech, question or answer. From time to time, I am sure that these documents are, in fact, read in the House. It is terrible, but what can one do?

The hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour has more to say on this topic and he has the floor.

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

Mr. Speaker, the point is not whether or not a document is used, but rather the fact that questions are being planted. In this respect, I refer you to a ruling by Speaker Bosley, who prohibited these kinds of questions.

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

3:55 p.m.

The Speaker

It is difficult for the Speaker to decide which questions are planted. Sometimes, we get the impression that it may be the case. But it is difficult to determine whether or not they are.

I think there is nothing wrong with fixing a question or answer once in a while. I have even heard stories about questions having been put to the government by a member of the opposition who had notified the minister to make sure he would get an answer and an accurate one.

This happens from time to time. Does this make it a planted question? I am not sure, and it is not up to the Speaker to decide.

So, a question was asked and answered, and I believe this matter is closed.

Order in Council AppointmentsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table on behalf of the government a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.

Aboriginal AffairsRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Kenora—Rainy River Ontario

Liberal

Bob Nault LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2001-02 annual report to the Nisga'a Final Agreement.