Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs with contempt for misrepresenting and dismissing the role of this House.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 15, the House defeated Bill C-31, an act to establish the Department of International Trade and to make related amendments to certain acts. The House also defeated Bill C-32, an act the amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Bill C-31 proposed to establish the Department of International Trade and Bill C-32 proposed to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and other acts as a consequence of the proposal from Bill C-31 to establish the Department of International Trade. I use the word “proposed” because, as we know, until Parliament establishes or amends an act, the act is not established or amended.
The government or the two responsible ministers have dismissed the legislative process. The trade minister is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying:
I was disappointed [the Conservatives] went against what they said they were going to do, but having said that, we are continuing to work head on.
The article also goes on to report:
Trade Minister...yesterday shrugged off the defeat of a bill that would create a new international trade department separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs, saying the two branches of government will continue to operate independently without Parliament's blessing.
The Ottawa Citizen reported the minister as saying:
We're not going to undo all the work we have done to become a functioning department.
The minister's comments show total disregard and disrespect for the role of the House. If the House is to function with authority and dignity, then it must be respected, especially by its own members, and particularly by the cabinet which is responsible to it.
While such disrespect is not new, the severity of this case is. Speakers have warned the government in the past for its dismissive view of Parliament.
I am very certain that the government will rise, be unapologetic and claim that it has the authority to do what it is doing. However, that is not the point. Why would the government introduce legislation pretending that it matters when it does not? Then, when the outcome is not favourable to it, the government ignores the outcome. The government is making a mockery of Parliament. What is the public to think? The passage or defeat of bills does not matter. Parliament does not matter. Members of this House are irrelevant.
Is all that matters, what decisions are made in the PMO? What happened to the Prime Minister who wanted to end the practice of getting things done based on who one knew in the PMO? What happened to the Prime Minister who wanted to slay the democratic deficit? His ministers have just bankrupted democracy.
I would like to submit a ruling from October 10, 1989, on a similar matter. While it was a similar matter in comparison to the case I am presenting today, it was less offensive, I conclude. Notwithstanding, Speaker Fraser took it very seriously. The issue was regarding an advertisement put out by the government which made it appear, and I stress the word “appear”, that the GST was approved by Parliament before Parliament actually approved it.
In the case of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, there is no appearance. The government has already implemented the measures in Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. The bills have been defeated, and that outcome has been ignored.
Getting back to Speaker Fraser's ruling, the Speaker quoted the former member for Windsor West, the Right Hon. Herb Gray. Mr. Gray said:
When this advertisement--says in effect there will be a new tax on January 1, 1991,--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 a contempt of Parliament because it amounts to a misrepresentation of the role of this House.
As I mentioned, the case I am presenting to the Speaker today goes beyond appearance. If that is not offensive enough, the attitude of the Minister of International Trade and his intentions and the intentions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to forge ahead are grounds enough for contempt. Where is the respect for the institution of Parliament? How can a minister of the Crown, who is responsible to the House, show such disregard and disrespect?
While the Speaker in 1989 did not rule a prima facie question of privilege, he did say this:
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.
I would argue that the situation I am presenting today is very much like the situation from 1989. The obvious difference is that it is far worse.
I do not understand why this sort of situation has not been addressed in the past. This government has a sordid past in these matters, and because the House has never dealt adequately with it, the government continues to make a mockery of Parliament. It has now gone to new heights and has taken it to a point where it can no longer be ignored.
To illustrate this point let me review some of the past disrespectful acts of the Liberal government.
On March 30, 1998, the minister of international trade sent out a press release announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group. At that time there was no Canada-China interparliamentary group.
The government named the head of the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation before there was even legislation to set up the foundation.
There was another case presented to the Speaker on October 28, 1997, relating to the actions of the Department of Finance.
On February 3, 1998, I raised a question of privilege condemning the government for its dismissive views of Parliament on a matter regarding the Canadian Wheat Board.
These complaints resulted in many warnings from the Chair, Mr. Speaker. One of the warnings came from Speaker Parent on November 6, 1997. It was as strong as Speaker Fraser's warning and it went like this:
--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 of Finance 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.
If a warning from the Speaker is to mean something, then the Speaker must be prepared to follow through with it. The Speaker's job is to ensure the House is given the opportunity to protect its authority and dignity.
I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at which time I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.