Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2008, with 38% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper March 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response To Petitions March 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions presented during the first session.
Questions On The Order Paper March 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response To Petitions March 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions presented during the first session.
Questions On The Order Paper March 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response To Petitions March 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions presented during the first session.
Privilege March 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a clarification from the hon. member as to whether or not he appreciates the importance of having this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I would like to get his view on the prejudicial aspects of the preamble to the hon. member's motion.
We are really talking about the fundamental issues of Canadian justice. Certainly as members of Parliament, which is from where all our country's laws should come, we should be setting the first example on justice. It strikes me that when we have a motion that colours the rights of any member of the House prior to its going to committee, we would be putting in jeopardy the deliberations of the committee. It was for that reason the amendment was offered.
I would like to get a specific reply to my question on whether or not there is a prejudice occurring.
Privilege March 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the matter that has been raised in this motion is very serious and you have ruled that it is sufficiently serious and it should be taken up with priority over the other business of the House.
I believe this is an indication to the House by its Speaker that this matter warrants a full investigation by the committee of the House that normally considers such matters, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which I have the honour to chair.
I want to assure hon. members that if this matter is referred to the committee it will be taken very seriously. It will be given a high priority and it will be dealt with in an orderly and equitable manner.
The House has on occasion dealt with matters of contempt in a summary fashion, for instance, when the offence in question was self-evident and without doubt, as in the case of a few years ago when the incident occurred in full view of the entire House. The usual practice, however, has been to ask a committee of the House, without prejudice, to look into the matter, to report its findings to the House and, if necessary, to recommend a course of action.
This motion does not follow the usual course. The essence of the motion is to ask the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to investigate the matter in question. This can be accomplished only if the terms of reference that the House gives to the committee are framed in a fair and equitable manner.
As I indicated in my brief remarks yesterday, the motion of reference now before the House does not seem to meet those criteria. In effect the motion sets out a series of conclusions and then asks the committee to investigate the actions in question. Any committee proceedings pursuant to such an order of reference would be clearly prejudiced. A fair and equitable order of reference would not dictate the conclusions of an investigation of a committee, it would merely set out the issue that the House wishes the committee to investigate.
To draw an analogy from the justice system, an individual is not convicted first and given a trial later. Every individual is entitled to a full and fair trial before any conclusions are reached.
If the motion restricted itself to that there would be no problem. There would be no prejudice implied. Unfortunately, the motion contains a great many prejudicial phrases which makes it impossible for the committee to conduct fair hearings. Without any investigation of the events surrounding the issue or of the law concerning either sedition or contempt, the motion seeks to declare individuals guilty of serious offences.
The motion does not charge these individuals with offences. It declares them guilty without the benefit of deliberation. This, as all hon. members know, is contrary to every principle of justice within the Canadian system. Every citizen is entitled to a fair trial in which the alleged offence is clearly defined and in which the allegations are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The motion, as it is worded, makes a number of assertions that may or may not be correct. It asks the House of Commons to accept those assertions as fact without the benefit of investigation. The motion declares that the alleged facts constitute serious breaches of law. It asks the House of Commons to come to conclusions on these laws without having the opportunity to consider the nature of these laws and the jurisprudence surrounding them.
I would suggest the proper course would be for the matter to be referred to committee for examination without prejudice. The committee could then proceed to a thorough examination of the law and the jurisprudence surrounding sedition and contempt and perhaps, more important, adduce the accurate and complete evidence concerning the actual events in question. It could then come to conclusions and report these to the House, along with any appropriate actions.
It is at that time, and only at that time, that the House should then be asked to make a definitive statement on the actions in question. As I said, it is contrary to every principle of justice that is basic to the system in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, your ruling is a strong indication to the House that it ought to order an investigation of the matter. I believe that the House is prepared to concur in your opinion. We do not, however, believe that we can risk any committee of the House being converted to some sort of kangaroo court. Any and all committee proceedings on such matters ought to be fair and equitable.
In order to accomplish this, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting before the word "that" and deleting all the words after the word "that" and by substituting for those words, the following:
-the matter of the communiqué of the member for Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995, with reference to members of the Canadian Armed Forces be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Questions On The Order Paper March 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response To Petitions March 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions presented during the first session.