Debates of Dec. 1st, 2004

Privilege

[Libby Davies, NDP, House Leader of the New Democratic Party]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege as a result of what happened during question period today when the leader of the NDP asked a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and was effectively shouted down repeatedly.

I think it is obvious, but maybe it needs to be stated, that our leader, and indeed any member of the House, has the right to raise a question in the House. It is a fundamental privilege of who we are as members of Parliament in order to do our business in the House of Commons. We also have the right to give a preamble to our question.

I know this issue of decorum in the House has recently come to the attention of House leaders. We have had discussions about it. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, have made your point of view known. What happened today in the House was basically that the leader of the NDP could not get his question out, was not allowed to return to his preamble and could not even hear what was going on because of the noise and disturbance that took place.

We understand that the opposition has a right to have a different point of view but to deny another member and the leader of our party the opportunity and right to raise a question in the House, and to be effectively shouted down and then to be joined by the government members as well, we find that completely appalling and unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, if members of the opposition choose to act in that manner, then we look to you as the Speaker to basically maintain the privilege that we have in this place, which includes the privilege of having a preamble to the question.

A disturbance like that should not then be used to take away time from the member who is raising the question. The violation took place on that side of the House. As you yourself have said in the past, Mr. Speaker, and the government side, it is up to the Speaker to make it clear that time will be taken away from the opposition, not from the member who is trying to raise the question and has done absolutely nothing wrong.

I would ask that you to look into this matter and find this to be a prima facie case of privilege for the member for Toronto—Danforth and that as a matter of general decorum and the fact that our leader was not able to deliver his question in the House today, this be considered as a matter for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to that of our colleague, the House leader of the New Democratic Party. I do not want to get into a debate consisting of accusing any of our colleagues. I would not want members of certain parties to feel that a particular party is being targeted. My remarks pertain more to respect for decorum during oral question period.

At a meeting of the House leaders, you raised this matter already. I respectfully submit that sometimes there are excessive deviations at times; repeated applause is one such example. One Wednesday, the government members rose nine times to applaud a very pedestrian non-answer by a minister. Obviously, the government was resorting to such tactics deliberately, because time is unalterable. When we have 45 minutes for oral questions, which party ultimately loses the opportunity to ask a question? It is always the Bloc Québécois or the NDP.

I do not want to get into a debate with the Conservative Party. Each party in this House needs to examine its conscience. I call upon your judgment. Perhaps we should consider, ultimately, taking away the right to ask questions if a party deliberately attempts to impede the course of oral question period.

I would point out that the Liberals have—I cannot find a better expression—two “planted” questions. The minister already knows the answer to the two questions. So, if the government members stand nine times during oral questions to applaud insignificant pedestrian answers, perhaps we should consider eliminating one of the questions.

[John Reynolds, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words on this. I think it is probably the first time in the history of the House that a member is up on a question of privilege about getting a standing ovation from both sides of the House, which happened today. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy for what happened to the leader of the NDP today.

But it happens on all sides of the House. The House leaders did meet a few weeks ago and talked about having no more standing ovations. My party did it for about three days, but it did not happen that way because other parties kept on doing it. I will not mention names. The hon. member mentioned the Conservative Party. Sure, we are as guilty as everybody else in the House.

I think what needs to happen is that the House leaders have to sit down and talk about the decorum, but certainly we also have to advise all members that if they are going to lead with statements that are inflammatory, they will create that type of thing happening in the chamber. That happens.

Both sides are guilty in this issue. If we are making statements that cause the standing ovations and the yelling and screaming, it is going to happen; it is not going to stop.

I think this is up to the House leaders together, because, Mr. Speaker, you have a tough enough job as it is. We have discussed this with you and you have concerns about it in regard to the concerns of members and the timing of question period. Maybe it is time that we started penalizing those who cause the problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not sure whether I wanted to rise in this debate, but having listened to the Conservative House leader, I feel I have to. With respect, if he checks the blues he will find that all the leader of the NDP was able to say before the noise that we are objecting to happened was “yesterday Colin Powell told me”. That was it.

Now, I ask if that is inflammatory; maybe if he had gotten as far as “yesterday Colin Powell told me that he favoured the NDP” or “yesterday Colin Powell told me that the moon is made of green cheese” or whatever, but all he got to say was “yesterday Colin Powell told me”. There is nothing inflammatory about that. The fact of the matter is that the House erupted, not just once but twice, after the leader of the NDP got those four or five words out.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that you have a problem here, and actually, we all have a problem. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you try to deal with things by being humourous, but this is getting to be unfunny.

It is getting to be unfunny, this systematic harassment in particular. A lot of stuff goes on here, but there is a systematic harassment and barracking and yelling at the leader of the NDP when he rises in the House to speak. I find it particularly objectionable.

It is funny, Mr. Speaker, in that we have spent two weeks with everyone walking on eggshells worrying about whether somebody would say something or say anything, or whisper, or even moan improperly, if the President of the United States was in the House of Commons here talking to us, but we can treat each other in the way that we treat each other. We are total hypocrites when it comes this, to the extent that we all so are worried about how polite we are going to be, but why can we not be polite with each other?

Why is it a problem if anybody were to express a disagreeable opinion with respect to someone else, but other members of the House feel that it is perfectly okay to shout down a person to the point where we cannot hear what is going on and the person cannot put his or her question? The duly elected member of Parliament who is the duly elected leader of a political party that over two million Canadians voted for and that person cannot ask a question in the House without being shouted down? That is not the Parliament I thought I was being elected to.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak tothis matter as well. Unlike the House leader of the Conservative Party, I am not so much bothered and distressed by the fact that one of our colleagues is given an ovation, genuine or not, as by the fact that this colleague is deprived of the possibility of finishing the preamble to his question.

Mr. Speaker, if this is the practice you wish to implement and it means that a member who is heckled is prevented from proceeding with his preamble, this is extremely disconcerting. Some people here might develop the unhealthy habit of heckling every time someone's preamble was not to their liking. This would eventually lead to no one ever having a chance to say anything in a preamble that was the least bit controversial. In this case, everyone will agree that there was nothing the least controversial in the preamble of the leader of the NDP. He did not even have the chance to get to the end of his speech, which might have been where the controversy lay.

We must not let a trend develop here whereby colleagues would end up deprived of the opportunity of completing their argument simply because of a heckling or an ovation, whether well intentioned or otherwise. You would need to implement a kind of rule of reprisal, if I might term it that, for members who waste the time of the House.

In the case of interest here, it is my opinion that the leader of the New Democratic Party was not the one wasting the time of the House, yet he is the one who has had to bear the consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, I am very supportive of your role in the capacity in which you serve this House.

I recognize that there is an overall blanket issue we are talking about, but I would like to refer specifically to what we are talking about here today and this particular event.

For good reason, there are words that are listed, and out of respect for the Chair I will not use any examples, and which we do not use in this House for the simple reason that they cause a furor and an uproar in the House. Although in many instances the words themselves may be true and a true characterization of something that someone has said or done, nonetheless we do not use them because they cause an uproar.

I am trying to be as respectful as I possibly can be here, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that the fact that the leader of the NDP took the massively hypocritical position of encouraging people to demonstrate, to demonstrate very actively, demonstrate to the point of illegality--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

--with the visit of President Bush and then turned around and went to his dinner, I think that, if anything, was as much a basis for the kind of response that happened in this House.

[The Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member is trying to be helpful, but we are dealing with a question of privilege and I think I have heard enough on this point. Again, I will make a decision on this.

I appreciate the counsel of the hon. members who have spoken—the two members of the Bloc, the members of the official opposition, and the hon. House leader of the NDP who raised the question in the first place.

But having heard the arguments, I have to say this in defence of the Chair's position in respect of the question that was asked. I did stand up and interrupt the outcries that interrupted the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth's question and I was sympathetic to the fact that he was being interrupted in this way.

The first time, as I recall, he then repeated the beginning of the question again, which provoked exactly the same reaction it had the first time.

I then interrupted again to quell the disturbance. My recollection is that he got some other words in, but then referred to someone else he had spoken to, which provoked a third reaction, and I interrupted again.

At no time was the time of those interruptions counted against him on his 35 seconds. The clock was stopped by the officers at the table. I made sure that this was not counted against him. So the time he actually had on his feet came either close to or exceeded the 35 seconds. The time was taken up. The whole thing took much longer than that with the disturbances, but I believe he had significant time spent, before each interruption, on his feet; I did not then use the interrupted time against him.

I think he had a fair shake on the time. It is just that he kept repeating a lot of what he had said previously rather than getting on with the rest of the question. For that reason, it disorganized things. He did get a second question, despite my suggestion that perhaps he should only get one because of the time that had elapsed, but I made sure he got a second one. I have not timed the whole thing. I have not looked at it, but I think he got a fair break given what happened in the House.

In respect of what happened, I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East and her suggestions that this matter should be reviewed, but I am not prepared to find a question of privilege in this case because in my view the hon. member's privileges were not breached. He did get to ask two questions in the House; that is my recollection.

Here is what I believe is appropriate, however.

The House leaders will continue their discussions on this subject. The hon. member for Vancouver East and the party whips are members of this group. I already encouraged such a discussion when I attended their meeting a few weeks ago.

I am certain that with more discussions on this topic and more ideas like the ones mentioned by the House leader of the official opposition and the other hon. members today, we may find another way to solve the problems of the House.

However, I agree the noise levels are excessive. I point out that in today's question period there was one question missed, and it was the third question on the government side, because time ran out. Everyone else on the official list, if I can call it an official list, got their question.

We did reasonably well despite the loss of time and the noise in the early stage but it in fact was the last question on the list that was eliminated and it happened to be the government's question.

I think our list has been drawn up fairly. The parties all agreed on that list. It was negotiated. I think it is a reasonable one, in terms of who was placed where. If there is someone who misses, the first miss is a government question because they are at the bottom of the list and we go up from there.

I sympathize with the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth and the noise he had to endure today, but I think sometimes that happens to various members when they say things that provoke difficulty. The usual thing I can say is to switch topics, move on and say something different or say it another way and maybe the provocation will be a little less. I think in the House where we have 300 members all seeking to express their view sometimes at the same time, there is a problem with noise.

Therefore, I encourage the House leaders to continue their discussions on this subject. I am open to suggestions from hon. members, as the hon. whip of the Bloc Québécois has suggested.

Nevertheless, I would like any decision on such a subject to be made with the consent of all parties in the House and not simply on my own. We have an agreement regarding oral question period covering the time allocated for each question and answer, the order to the questions and the number of questions for each party.

Since the Speaker is a servant of the House, I must do as I am told, if I can put it that way, by all parties in this House.

I am keen to work cooperatively with the House leaders and whips on this subject. I can assure the hon. member for Vancouver East that if I can assist in those discussions, I will be more than happy to do so. However, I do not think, on the facts of today's question period, there was a breach of privilege as she alleges. I think the point she has raised is important and I am sure the discussion in the House today was of assistance to all parties.

Points of Order

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

In light of the two questions of privilege that have been raised this afternoon, I just wonder if you could clarify for me and for the House as to the validity of people raising questions of privilege on behalf of other members who are not even in the chamber at the time.

It was my understanding according to the Standing Orders that if I felt my privileges as a member of Parliament had been usurped, I had to raise that question of privilege myself rather than have someone raise it on my behalf. If I am mistaken, I would like the Chair to clarify.

[The Speaker]

I can tell the member that I found one was not a question of privilege anyway.

The second one was raised by the whip of the Bloc Québécois on behalf of numerous members. I felt that in the circumstances, since it was raised on behalf of numerous members and since it received support from all sides, it was appropriate that the matter go to committee and be studied there. Frankly, I believe there were technical breaches of obstructing members from getting to the Hill and getting to the House for the purposes of carrying out their duties here. The fact that individual members who had it happen to them were not all here raising it, I felt in the circumstances, was not necessary.

I will look into the authorities and advise the hon. member. I have not allowed one raised by the member for Vancouver East, but it was not just because she raised it on behalf of the member for Toronto--Danforth. She did give me notice that she intended to raise it. I assume she is raising it as House leader for her party, saying that her party's privileges have been affected by the proceedings in the House and I accept it on that basis.

Tabling of Documents

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table, in both official languages, a response to a question from the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erindale during question period in the House of Commons on November 29.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[John Reynolds, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-304, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Battle River.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will correct an error that was made prior to the last election and will substitute the name Westlock--St. Paul for the name of Battle River which will more realistically represent the real name of that riding.

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

Committees of the House

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding Standing Order 83.1, the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to present its Report on the Pre-Budget Consultations 2004 between December 3 and December 17, 2004; and

That, on any day that the House is not sitting in December 2004, the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the House, which shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to present the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise once more and present another petition on behalf of our military families who live on base.

This petition is signed by citizens from Coalhurst, Alberta. They wish to draw to the attention of the House of Commons that the Canadian Forces Housing Agency does provide on base housing. However some of that housing is below acceptable living conditions and our military families are subjected to annual rent increases well above what they should have to face in many instances.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately suspend any future rent increases for accommodation provided by the Canadian Forces Housing Agency until such time as the Government of Canada makes substantive improvements to the living conditions of housing provided for our military families.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of 3,250 islanders from right across P.E.I. from Souris, Fort Augustus, Charlottetown, Summerside, Stratford and many other areas.

The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House that our children need protection from sexual exploitation. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking the necessary steps to raise the age of consent from 14 years of age to 18 years of age.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to submit a petition signed by some of my constituents who, for the most part, are residents of Côte-de-Beaupré and Île-d'Orléans.

The petitioners urge Parliament to take the necessary measures to oppose Canada's involvement in the U.S. missile defence shield project. They believe that Canada's participation in all or part of the U.S. missile defence program would be contrary to their interests and values. They ask that taxes be applied as a matter of priority to meeting urgent and important needs of the public, particularly in health.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.