Ray Speaker

[Privilege, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a personal charge that is against me in this assembly, a charge that is criminal in nature and which reflects on my reputation. This has and will continue to affect my ability to function effectively as a member of Parliament while the matter remains unresolved.

On March 22, 1983, at page 24027 of Hansard the Speaker ruled:

A reflection upon the reputation of an Hon. Member is a matter of great concern to all Members of the House. It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it suggests that among-

[Human Rights, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister can delay the decision all he wants, but for years courts and tribunals have been setting policy for government and even the private sector on this issue with no debate in government. That is an absolute outrage and is unforgivable. Parliament, not the tribunals, is where the laws of Canada should be written.

The justice minister said that he tabled Bill C-33 so this issue would not be left in the hands of the courts and the tribunals. If he was serious about that promise, will he respond to this ruling in such a way to uphold the primacy of this Parliament?

[Human Rights, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said the government must extend to gay couples the same benefits it gives to heterosexual couples.

It said if discrimination is prohibited then benefits must be granted. However, in this House the justice minister said to us and to Canadians that his government was intent on fighting discrimination, not granting benefits.

Since the justice minister assured Canadians that the goal of the government was not to grant benefits, does he intend to stand by that commitment? How will he respond to the tribunal's decision?

[The Late Stephen Neary, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada, as the House leader I would like to extend my condolences and sympathy today to Stephen Neary's family, his wife Mary and their children.

We certainly understand why a person such as Steven who made such a major contribution, not only to his province but to his friends, neighbours and his community, should be honoured today in this assembly.

I have spoken with other people about Stephen's contribution, beyond what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has indicated to us today. Stephen was a person who worked with the people at the grassroots level, in the community, in their homes, the coffee shops and businesses. He understood what they wanted to do with their lives and in building their local communities and Newfoundland as well.

That is part of our democratic process which is maintained by the integrity of people such as Stephen Neary.

On behalf of my colleagues, I pay tribute to him and thank he and his family for making a public contribution to Canada. We honour his memory.

[The Late Joe Flynn, June 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada I would like to express our sympathies, our understanding and certainly condolences to the Joe Flynn family and all of his friends.

We recognize the contribution Mr. Flynn made to the House of Commons and to his constituents during his hard work and the contribution in his own community. He worked with the school board, the Chamber of Commerce and a number of other organizations.

I am sure he will be missed and truly recognized for the contributions he made. We extend our condolences and our understanding.

[Petitions, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 199 signatures from residents of my Lethbridge constituency.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament enact Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profit from the committing of crime.

[Parliamentary Service, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome all of the former senators and members of Parliament who have gathered here in Ottawa today to commemorate the history of parliamentary service in Canada. It is a history they should be proud of and I am very sure they are.

At times public service can be very difficult, trying and seemingly a thankless task. I am sure every member who has served in this House has, in a moment of frustration, questioned whether they were really making a difference. My message is simple: Your efforts not only made a difference, they made a great difference for us here in Canada. Just look at what we have accomplished.

In 129 short years we have grown from a mere colony to a country that is the envy of the world. We have built a free, democratic and tolerant society where we dream big dreams and then live them. We occupy a proud place in the family of nations. Much of that credit goes to these many men and women who are here today.

On behalf of my colleagues and the Reform Party of Canada, I would like to join in paying tribute to all the men and women who have served in the Parliament of Canada since Confederation. Thank you very much.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member for London West has two paragraphs to complete. Someone in our assembly said go, and I think you understood it as no.

I would like you to ask for unanimous consent for her to conclude her speech.

[Business Of The House, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. parliamentary secretary indicate whether there will be a free vote on Bill C-33, thus row by row?

[Point Of Order, May 9th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which I will make very brief. I know there is a very important debate on Bill C-33 before the House.

This point of order is relative to the business of the House tomorrow and concerns the private member's motion in the name of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, which is listed as Motion No. M-2 on today's Order Paper. This motion is scheduled for debate tomorrow during private members' hour and I believe that you should rule it out of order.

Beauchesne's sixth edition states that the conduct of a member may only be discussed in the House of Commons by way of a substantive or a distinct motion, that is, a self-contained proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision to the House.

That is a very key point. This is the first time that a motion charging another member with contempt has been scheduled for debate under the new rules governing private members' business.

Before the rule change, all private members' items were votable. If a member attempted to use a private members' motion to charge another member with contempt under the old rules, the motion would be automatically votable.

The situation in which we find ourselves today is a first. It will be the first time that the House receives a non-votable motion that charges another member with contempt. If allowed, it will set a dangerous practice because there is no conclusion at the end of the process.

If a member is going to make a charge against another member, then he or she had better present the House with a votable motion. If you are going to make a charge you had better put your money where your mouth is. Anything else would be unjust, improper and against the practices of the House.

If this motion is allowed to come forward, we will be engaging in an unfair and dishonest hit and run attack on a member. It is unparliamentary and unethical because of a loophole.

When the rules changed, no one considered the point I am raising today regarding a charge of contempt. The subcommittee on private members' business, or the committee it reports to, does not have the power to deny debate on this motion. Also, it is not obliged to automatically deem such motions votable. That is why it is up to you, Madam Speaker, to decide whether or not it is right to deal with this matter. I ask for your guidance.

Charging another member with contempt of Parliament is not something we in this House take lightly. Considering that every reference and every precedent of a charge of contempt against another member from Erskine May, Beauchesne, Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , without exception, take the form of a votable motion, we should not now break with this practice and allow a motion charging a member with contempt to go forward if we are not prepared to take action.