John Nunziata

[Privilege, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very brief submission with respect to this matter.

To all intents and purposes this is a question of the rule of law and respect for the rule of law. Because a member of Parliament is alleged to have breached the Criminal Code, the issue becomes, as well as the other issues, whether or not members of Parliament should be above the rule of law.

My recollection is that this matter has not been considered by either the Attorney General for the province of Ontario or his counterpart in the province in Quebec. There are two issues here; one with respect to a breach of the Criminal Code of Canada and the other with respect to the matter raised by the hon. member, a breach of the privileges of the House.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, you would agree that the first is the more important issue, whether or not the Criminal Code of Canada has been breached with respect to the laws of sedition. It is clear that there is a general reluctance on the part of authority, whether it is here in Ottawa or at the provincial attorneys general level, to pursue this issue because of the political consequences of a prosecution.

I do not believe that Parliament or the attorneys general of Quebec or Ontario should not prosecute because of potential political consequences. You either have a criminal law to which all the citizens of the country are subjected or you do not. In order for there to be respect for the rule of law there has to be a perception that nobody is above it, not even members of Parliament and not even judges.

I would recommend or urge you, Mr. Speaker, not to dismiss this matter on the basis of a technicality which is whether or not the matter has been brought to the attention of Parliament at the earliest opportunity. I think that would be a cop out and would be seen as summarily dealing with a matter of grave national importance.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to refer the matter to the appropriate committee of the House so that the committee will be charged with investigating all aspects of this matter. That committee, in my respectful submission, should be urging the attorney general for the province of Ontario and the attorney general for the province of Quebec to review the matter. If in their wisdom they decide that there are no grounds for criminal prosecution then so be it.

However, if there are grounds for a criminal prosecution the criminal prosecution should proceed and the attorneys general, either one of the two, should not take into account political consequences of the rule of law or a potential breach of the Criminal Code.

We are not talking about a minor or summary conviction offence. We are talking about an indictable offence under the Criminal Code. Therefore, I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to refer this matter to the committee for complete consideration.

[Committee Of The Whole, February 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I completely and unequivocally support the member for Madawaska-Victoria

It is unfortunate and regrettable that the Reform Party has personalized this rather important procedure we are going through. It now has gone beyond whether there was a commitment in the red book to have two of the junior officers from the opposition parties. This is the first time in the 11 or 12 years I have been in Parliament that the appointment or the election of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or junior officers of the chair has been politicized and personalized to the extent it has been today.

In order for you, Mr. Speaker, to be effective and in order for the Chair to be effective, you must together with your junior officers have the support and respect of all members and all parties in the House.

The moment the election of a Speaker or Deputy Speaker is decided on a partisan or party basis and once the matter becomes personalized, it is a very sad reflection on Parliament as a whole.

Earlier I tried to have the matter referred to a committee for further consideration. Some members of the House in their wisdom decided they would rather have a vote and personalize and politicize the election of the junior officers.

I abstained in the first vote because I believe that if we made a commitment in the election we should keep that commitment. I intend to abstain from this vote as well, not because I disagree in

any way with the appointment of the member for Madawaska-Victoria but because I disagree with the manner in which this matter is being dealt with today.

[Committee Of The Whole, February 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the concern, I would ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House prior to the vote to have the appointment of officers referred to a committee to give consideration to the commitment that would appear to be in the red book.

[Committee Of The Whole, February 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

There appears to be some debate whether or not the matter to be voted on is a matter that is included in the so-called red book. I have had an opportunity to review the red book, in particular appendix B, which is platform papers. The appendix refers to a document dated January 19, 1993 entitled "Reviving Parliamentary Democracy: The Liberal Plan for House of Commons and Electoral Reform".

[Points Of Order, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege. Perhaps the false impression has been left with my constituents that the Liberal Party opposes the singing of the national anthem in the House of Commons.

The fact that unanimous consent was denied does not mean that the Liberal Party is opposed to the merits of the resolution. The fact that unanimous consent was denied only means that it was denied with respect to the process that the Reform Party is following to-

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

Then I do not see, Mr. Speaker, how you can apply a previously held vote to this vote when certain members have left.

If you take that position, I would suggest that you are setting an unfortunate precedent and that in future when this type of approach is taken to multiple votes in the House it would be open for any member to leave the House once the first vote is taken and to have his or her vote applied to each and every other vote taken in the House.

I would ask that you reconsider that position.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a fundamental principle of the House, and you are the guardian of the principles of the House, that in order to be recorded as voting on a particular matter the member's presence is required in the House.

Is the hon. member opposite indicating that certain members left the House?

[Points Of Order, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have a letter in front of me from the Minister of Finance in which he refers to the subject matter my friend from Gander-Grand Falls raised as a cost presumably to the taxpayers of Canada. He pegs that cost at $125 million for 1995-96 and $145 million for 1996-97.

We are not dealing with petty cash here. We are dealing with a significant amount of taxpayers' dollars. What ordinary Canadians want to know is if it is such an important piece of legislation, why is it coming via the unelected Senate of Canada? Since when does an unelected group of men and women down the hall from this elected Chamber introduce legislation that will have the result of withdrawing from the public purse $125 million this year and $145 million next year?

Surely that moral and legal right ought to be that of the government of the day. It is the government that should be setting public policy, not unelected senators.

I lend my support to the member who raised this point. If it is the government's wish, and I understand the government is supporting this initiative, why bring in the back door what they do not have the courage to bring in through the front door?

Let us have an honest debate in the House of Commons. Let us have them introduce it as a government bill. Let us debate it at second reading. Let us send it to the committee. Let us have the courage as elected people to call a spade a spade.

The minister refers to it as a cost in his letter. It must be a cost because it will cost you and I and every other taxpayer close to $300 million over the next two years.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. On December 13 the House passed at second reading private member's Bill C-226, which deals with section 745 of the Criminal Code.

The House in principle supported the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code. This amendment to this piece of legislation purports to amend a bill or a section of the Criminal Code Parliament has already pronounced on in terms of repealing it at second reading.

The private member's bill is presently before the justice committee. I seek some direction from the Chair as to whether this amendment and the section in this bill are in order.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I seek some clarification from the Chair. My understanding is that the effect of Motion No. 14 by the member for Scarborough West is to insert a comma into the legislation. Can you confirm that, please, or can the author confirm the effect of that amendment?