Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege resulting from remarks made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on Wednesday, December 5. I was away with a delegation representing Canada at the United Nations and this is therefore my first opportunity to raise the matter in the House.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the other day the minister crossed the line procedurally in the House. You dealt with it by directly reminding the minister of what is parliamentary. However the minister continued her attack against me which was recorded in the Ottawa Citizen on Thursday, December 6 and picked up in papers across the country. The article quotes the minister as saying:
I think it would be treasonous to suggest that we would let out known terrorist suspects simply because there was not space...That's wrong, it's false and I was a little angry about it.
The minister was apparently trying to justify why she angrily accused me of spreading lies during question period on Monday. The minister later did not deny uttering the quote.
I will support my case with citations but I will first say this. The comments made by the minister of immigration are not only incorrect. Her statement was politically motivated in a mean-spirited way and was a deliberate attempt to tarnish my reputation as a member of the House.
A quick look at past statements by the minister will confirm my point that the minister purposely uses outrageous charges against members opposed to her policies in an attempt to deflect attention from her own performance. In that vein the House will never forget the shame brought to our national electoral process by the minister during the last election.
Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern here of which you are well aware and which must not pass without correction. I have taken offence as a member, but parliament has also been offended and it must be defended. I remind the House of the rule wherein if a minister of the crown misleads the House or lies to the Chamber the minister is duty bound to resign forthwith.
The boundary line on that matter has been slipping somewhat of late. I have frequently pointed out in the Chamber the big disconnect between what the minister says in the House about the state of affairs in her department and what its workers say. In my estimation, the judgment of the public and especially that of line workers in her department, her assertions to the House appear to be false. However these matters are sidestepped as mere political rhetoric, debate and honest difference of opinion.
In support of my question of privilege I cite that on March 16, 1983, Mr. Bryce Mackasey raised a question of privilege to denounce accusations appearing in a series of articles in the Montreal Gazette to the effect that he was a paid lobbyist.
On March 22, 1983, on page 24027 of Hansard , the Speaker ruled that he had a prime facie question of privilege. The reasons given by the Speaker appear on page 29 of
Selected Decisions of Speaker Jeanne Sauvé:
Not only do defamatory allegations about Members place the entire institution of Parliament under a cloud, they also prevent Members from performing their duties as long as the matter remains unresolved, since, as one authority states, such allegations bring Members into “hatred, contempt or ridicule.” Moreover, authorities and precedents agree that even though a Member can “seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a Member while this slur upon his reputation remains.” Since there is no way of knowing how long litigation would take, the Member must be allowed to re-establish his reputation as speedily as possible by referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Need I remind the House that treason is a high crime? How can I carry out my duties as a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition when a minister of the crown can attribute to me treasonous words or activities which, in effect, accuse a member of disloyalty to Her Majesty?
We must remember that treason under section 46 of the criminal code was formerly punishable by hanging. Sadly, the minister confuses my duty to criticize the government and require it to justify to the electorate how it is administering with what the code says about using “force or violence to overthrow the government”. The minister's epithets are so beyond acceptable political discourse that they must be denounced by parliament.
On page 214 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada there is a reference to reflections on members. It states:
The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect of utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterance which do not meet that standard. As put by Bourinot, “any scandalous and libellous reflection on the proceedings of the House is a breach of the privileges of Parliament”...and “libels upon members individually”--
The problem is that when the rules of parliament are not sufficiently defended the public disconnects and the relevance and authority of parliament are undermined. As confidence in this place is eroded, the public disengages from democracy and the downward spiral continues. The House has been brought down even lower now as the minister plays the victim card in the media to absolve some of her culpability rather than comprehend that the general public reaction is likely related to bad management.
In conclusion, I am asking that the role, rights and privileges of members be defended. I am asking that you defend parliament by hearing my plea. If you find a particular point in my case to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
