Reg Alcock

[Access to Information, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary of the assertion made by the hon. member, this government has engaged in unprecedented openness, not just in the release of normally confidential information but in our practice of disclosure around contracting and appointments; in the information we provide to the House on the work we are doing to make evergreen; and in the paper that is before the committee looking at a new Access to Information Act. This government is moving very quickly and very aggressively on open access.

[Privilege, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if you check you will find that the Speaker ruled just a few days ago on the kind of language and the kind of direct accusations that could be made. If you examine the blues, you will find there was a very direct accusation of complicity and an act of fraud.

I think that is unbecoming of the House. There has been some talk on the other side about moving to a different order here, trying to ratchet down the language to bring a little more decorum to the House.

I think there are two issues at stake. One is to ensure that happens and two is to ensure that the Chair enforces the privileges of members in the House.

[Sponsorship Program, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is particularly unique coming from that member, but I would invite the member to do as he has done in the past, to step outside and make those allegations.

[Sponsorship Program, May 11th, 2005]

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that questions like that are even allowed in the House, given the advice that was received in Marleau and Montpetit.

I will say the same thing over and over again. If he has a charge or an accusation to make about people who cannot defend themselves in the House, he should step outside and make it.

[Sponsorship Program, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments from the member for Medicine Hat this morning about how some of these things are just technicalities. We notice that that party has a habit of treating these things as technicalities: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution, fundamental justice.

The people involved have denied it. They have taken legal action. Until there is evidence to the contrary, they deserve the respect of the House.

[Sponsorship Program, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery has had many things to say about this. On Friday, May 6 he said, “I think it has been established that the Liberal Party operated in a legal manner. This has been established and I accept it”.

[Points of Order, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to remind hon. members of what our rules are. Marleau and Montpetit states at page 77:

There are only two kinds of institutions in this land to which this awesome and far-reaching privilege [of freedom of speech] extends--Parliament and the legislatures on the one hand and the courts on the other. These institutions enjoy the protection of absolute privilege because of the overriding need to ensure that the truth can be told, that any questions can be asked....

Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them. Reputations could be destroyed on the basis of false rumour. All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.

[Sponsorship Program, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that those two individuals have absolutely and completely denied it and they are taking action to defend themselves, which they have the right to do. We should not jump to the execution before we have had the trial.

[Sponsorship Program, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to spend a little time with Marleau and Montpetit which talks about the privileges of the House and what it confers on members. It confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the hon. members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them.

I would caution hon. members to use a little judgment.

[Sponsorship Program, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, because the individuals in question have absolutely and completely denied the allegations and have asked their lawyers to take action on it. What the member has to remember is that people do have rights in this country whether or not they are demonstrated on the floor of the House.