John Reynolds

[Business of the house, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader the business for tomorrow. The House, of course, will then recess, the members will go home to work very hard for seven days in their constituencies and then we will be coming back. Could he tell us the work that he has planned for the week we return?

[Petitions, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions signed by hundreds of people in the Powell River region of my riding. The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Points of Order, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a motion on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Ottawa--Vanier seeking concurrence in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I believe this is a clear conflict of interest and a violation of Standing Order 21.

As you are aware, I raised the issue of the signature of the member on the report and whether or not that violated Standing Order 21. I argued that the member had a pecuniary interest with the recommendation in the report and as a result, he ought not to have signed off on it.

Mr. Speaker, while you ruled that the member's signature did not violate Standing Order 21, you did make some statements that I believe make a case that the concurrence motion may violate our practices with respect to pecuniary interest. On May 8, 2003 you stated:

In the present case, I believe that it is important to note that the reimbursement is being recommended to the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier as a reimbursement for legal costs he incurred as a third party intervener. The funds are not, strictly speaking, a grant of money to the member personally, though it must be admitted that, if no reimbursement is made, the hon. member will have suffered a loss and so can be said to have a pecuniary interest in the matter.

The Speaker recognized that the member had a pecuniary interest but that his signature alone did not violate Standing Order 21. Mr. Speaker said:

There is not, as the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier pointed out, any suggestion either in our written rules or our practice that, in signing a report, the chair takes a position for or against its contents. The signature merely attests that the contents of the report reflect the decisions of the committee.

I concede that in signing the report, the chair of a committee is not taking a position for or against. What I am talking about today is the concurrence motion in the name of the member for Ottawa--Vanier.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, concurrence motions are voluntary. As chairman of the official languages committee he may have been obliged to sign the report, but there is absolutely no obligation for him to table a concurrence motion. The motion seeks the House's concurrence in the report. That is taking a position. Therefore the act of giving notice of a motion concurring in a report in which the member has a pecuniary interest puts him in a conflict of interest.

I remind the House that the report names the member and it states that the House of Commons suggest to its Board of Internal Economy to make available a maximum budget of $30,000 to cover a portion of the legal fees incurred by the member for Ottawa--Vanier.

As I stated in my first point of order on this matter, Marleau and Montpetit on page 189 is concerned with members being seen to be impartial and that they should not derive personal benefit or gain from their decisions.

The voluntary action of placing a concurrence motion on the Order Paper is a clear conflict of interest. The motion in the name of the member for Ottawa--Vanier should be removed from the Order Paper.

[Privilege, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are three privileges dealing with the attendance of members and the potentiality for a conflict between duty to Parliament and duty to obey a court order. These privileges are freedom from arrest, freedom from giving evidence, and freedom from serving on a jury. It should be noted that these privileges do not involve cases of criminal matters or breaches of provincial statutes that involve the summary jurisdiction of the Criminal Code. They apply only to civil cases.

Historically, and according to Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , “The first privilege accorded to parliamentarians in England was an assurance that the Barons and other Lords were not impeded on their way to the council with the monarch because of civil process”.

We have run out of barons and lords in the House of Commons to a large extent, except for the odd few in the cabinet over there. Maingot continues:

The concern was to secure the attendance of Members, and it remains to this day the principal reason for the privilege of freedom from arrest, from attending as a witness in a court or elsewhere than Parliament, and from serving on a jury. This is because the most important body in the country, the Parliament of Canada, has the first call on the services of its Members and...Parliament will not tolerate impediments to Members who are on their way to attend the sittings.

It seems reasonable that a member could ignore an order to appear before court if called to attend a vote in the House if that vote was considered important. If a member were to be charged with contempt of court in such a case, it seems reasonable that the House should protect that member. In such a conflict, the duty to Parliament clearly outweighs the duty to the courts.

The potential for the abuse of these privileges seem to arise out of the automatic nature of the immunity and when a member uses the privilege for personal advantage.

On November 25, 1998, a private member's motion was debated in the House. It was worded as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, members of the House of Commons and senators should be treated equally before the law and therefore the parliamentary privilege that allows members of the House of Commons and senators to refuse to give evidence in a Canadian court of law should be abolished.

Robert Fife wrote a column about the motion entitled “Lawmakers above the law”. He cited the cases when in 1989 NDP MP Dave Barrett claimed parliamentary immunity to avoid a summons in a case involving non-payment of his leadership debts and when Conservative Senator Eric Berntson used the privilege to excuse himself from answering a subpoena in a trial involving a fraud ring that operated in the Tory caucus of former Saskatchewan premier Grant Devine.

Since the motion was not votable and the House did not take a decision on the issue, the privilege is in play and we should of course do what we need to do to defend it, keeping in mind the details and potential abuse.

The government House leader is raising a concern today about a B.C. Supreme Court ruling involving the member for LaSalle—Émard. He asserts that the Constitution and convention provide that it is for Parliament to state what its privileges are with respect to matters related to Parliament and its proceedings. He claims that it is for Parliament and not the courts to define what is or is not a matter of parliamentary privilege.

On Thursday, May 8, 2003, the Canadian Alliance proposed a motion, which read:

That this House call upon the government to bring in measures to protect and reassert the will of Parliament against certain court decisions that: (a) threaten the traditional definition of marriage as decided by the House as, “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”; (b) grant house arrest to child sexual predators and make it easier for child sexual predators to produce and possess child pornography; and (c) grant prisoners the right to vote.

The same minister who is defending his colleague, the member for LaSalle—Émard, and defending the rights of Parliament against a court ruling participated in the debate on Thursday. This is what he said last Thursday:

Some members of the House have suggested that the courts are assuming a role that is not contemplated in the Constitution. That is close to ridiculous. Such comments may cause people to question the legitimacy of the courts. In a society where we value the law, comments like this coming from parliamentarians run totally contrary to the principles we are called upon to defend in this Chamber, collectively and individually...The independence of the judiciary is fundamental. Judges' independence must be respected, both individually and collectively.

When it comes to protecting children from child sexual predators, preserving the traditional definition of marriage as established by the House and defending against court rulings that allow prisoners to vote against the will of Parliament, the minister ridicules any attempt to use the authority of Parliament. When it comes to defending the next prime minister, he is on his feet pleading that the House take action.

Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada sums up the privileges of freedom from arrest as a protection from arrest for any civil process, such as failing to obey any order or judgment of the court in a civil matter, including civil contempt. A member of Parliament does not have immunity from arrest in criminal matters and may be imprisoned for a criminal or quasi-criminal offence, including criminal contempt of court.

On the other hand, page 158 suggests that the House has the authority to intervene if it feels the circumstances are extraordinary:

While neither House of Parliament has waived or would likely waive its right to intervene if and when Members are convicted and committed for contempt [of court], and thus could in theory consider each case on its merits, it is unlikely that either House of Parliament would take any matter into consideration relating to the civil process unless the circumstances were extraordinary. It is also unlikely that Parliament would actually interfere in a criminal arrest of a Member, including criminal contempt of court. While cases may arise, the position of the House of Commons...suggests that...[the] House will at least investigate every such matter brought to its attention in order to be assured that the privileges of Parliament are not affected.

Therefore, if the House has the authority to intervene in extraordinary cases to protect its privileges, then members do not need an automatic privilege of freedom from arrest. This would be consistent with most other cases involving members' privileges. When members feel that their privileges have been breached, they first raise it with the Speaker, who determines whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege. If the member's question of privilege is prima facie, then the House considers the case and makes a decision.

With respect to being required to attend as a witness, once again the problem is not with the idea that the House has first call on the service of its members but the automatic immunity granted to a member. As it stands now, the House would likely uphold a member's privilege of freedom from giving evidence without question. The House should instead consider the circumstances and decide based on the merits of the case.

If the former minister of finance was formally charged with contempt of court, then the action should be taken seriously and the House should consider the matter. I point out again that the courts have made decisions with more serious consequences, yet the government has failed to act. Everything else seems to warrant the member for LaSalle—Émard absenting himself from the House, such as fundraisers and flipping hotdogs, but not a court subpoena. He has his priorities.

[Fisheries, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is not just about the fishery. This is about the government failing Canadians at every turn, on issues such as Kyoto, softwood, wheat duties, west coast and east coast offshore drilling, and now the coastal fishery.

In response to the concerns of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Prime Minister said it was not really an issue for him because he would be gone in a few months. Why is it that the government's shameful response to provincial concerns is to stall, dismiss or ignore them?

[Fisheries, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the east coast fishery is only the latest example of how the government's arrogance and indifferent mismanagement has driven provincial governments to demand greater control over their resources. Last week the intergovernmental affairs minister flippantly dismissed Newfoundland and Labrador's concerns with a hurtful and sarcastic comment.

Will the Prime Minister agree to open negotiations with first ministers on joint management of programs that directly affect their resources?

[Fisheries, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what arrogance again, a government that darn near lost Canada a few years ago telling us how it could run it better. Shameful.

The government's arrogance extends beyond Newfoundland and Labrador. Across the country there is a systematic dismissal of provincial concerns by this government. The government has failed to resolve the softwood and offshore drilling issues in British Columbia. The government has failed to address the health delivery options for Alberta and the rest of Canada. The government has failed to resolve devastating duties on wheat in Saskatchewan.

Why is the government's only response to provincial concerns to stall, to dismiss or to ignore them altogether?

[Fisheries, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what arrogance. The Liberal government thinks it knows it all.

While the provinces call for changes, the fisheries minister responds by saying, and I quote him, “The federal government has always been in charge of the fishery”. We have seen what a stellar job it has done. Stocks are depleted, businesses are shutting down, and thousands are out of work. Obviously the federal government's way of doing things is not working. Will the government commit to devolving greater control of the resources to the provinces?

[Fisheries, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador stated his desire to renegotiate the terms of Confederation. The minister's response was a flippant dismissal, followed by laughter from the government backbenches.

The government's mismanagement of the cod fishery has left the provinces with few choices. One clear choice is to demand more control over the industry. Why is the government unwilling to give Newfoundland a say over its own resources?

[Points of Order, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly say I accept your ruling, as I always do. I think it is only proper that the opposition ask these questions on these motions so that the public can get a clear answer as to how they are done. There was an issue there, but we accept your ruling and I think it goes no further than that.