Ray Speaker

[Privilege, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of quotations I would like to have given you from Beauchesne's and Maingot, but I will not go through that. Some of my colleagues have already done that.

However, I make reference to one with regard to former Bill C-226, now Bill C-234, and how it was handled in committee. I refer to page 12 of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada where he describes that function:

Parliamentary privilege is the necessary immunity that the law provides for members of Parliament, and for members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work.

What we are saying is that our parliamentary privilege was taken away by that committee, when a group that has a majority of government members on it, Liberal members, decided it did not like what was in the bill. It said that bill would not be reported back to the House.

On that basis, as a private member it took away my parliamentary privilege, my right to speak to the bill, to debate it on behalf of Canadian citizens and maybe to have the opportunity of keeping murderers in this country in prison for 25 years.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader for the Bloc Quebecois would certainly like to lead me down that road and lay those kinds of charges.

If the hon. member was listening he will know that it was very clearly stated in my remarks that the oath of allegiance was referring to the oath of allegiance by members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Those members of the Canadian Armed Forces in their oath of allegiance make a commitment to Canada and to serve Canada and not to leave their duties or responsibilities during that service and to protect us as citizens.

It is the basic function of the federal government to ensure Canada has security with in the nation and security internationally. That is a basic function of the federal government. We expect the members of the armed forces to live up to that oath, commit to it and not to deviate from it.

The communique that was sent by the loyal-supposedly-official opposition, in our opinion, said to members of the Canadian Armed Forces that they could leave the armed forces. At that time it created a conflict in the minds of members of armed forces, those who were Quebec born and others.

They asked "who am I loyal to?" There was a conflict between the communique and the oath of allegiance of the Canadian Armed Forces. It was very obvious. There are many young men and women who are committed to serving the country. When they are presented with an order, edict or a communique from the House of Commons, the formal government of the country, the last appeal for Canadian people, can we not see their minds would be put into conflict? We feel that because of that there was a contempt of Parliament and certainly a conflict between the oath of allegiance of our people in the armed forces and that communique.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would say "be deleted".

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to speak to this motion as eloquently as my colleague did just now. I will be moving an amendment at the end of my speech.

The Reform Party has expressed its opinion in its minority report. It feels very strongly, as my hon. colleague has stated here today, that the member for Charlesbourg is clearly in contempt of Parliament because he breached his privileges as a member of Parliament by sending a communique on the letterhead of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to Quebec born members of the Canadian forces which directly conflicted with the oath of allegiance to Canada sworn by the Canadian Armed Forces members.

According to what constitutes a contempt of Parliament provided by Diane Davidson, general legal counsel for the House of Commons, who was a witness, the communique satisfies the requirement on eight counts. The communique, by contradicting the oath of allegiance and carrying the authenticity and legitimacy of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, violated the integrity of this House.

The Reform Party maintains that the communique brought the House into disgrace, shame and ridicule. The latter are the first three categories enumerated by Davidson and meeting the requirement of any one of them amounts to a contempt of Parliament.

The next two means of contempt cited are from Erskine May's definition: "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the discharge of its functions".

The Reform Party maintains that the discharge of the function of Parliament has been obstructed and impeded by the communique because it contradicted the oath of allegiance to Canada which came from Parliament and as sworn by the members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The communique impeded and obstructed the discharge of the function of the House to control the Canadian Armed Forces.

The sixth means of contempt is achieved by so-called constructive contempt. It is "misconduct of an indirect nature such as the publication of writings reflecting on the House". The Reform Party believes that the communique reflected on the House, given the letterhead used of the Leader of the Official Opposition, and was a misconduct because it contradicted the oath of allegiance.

Davidson cited the seventh way contempt is committed as that which is "an affront to the House". The Reform Party believes it was an affront to the House for members of the House to answer for this communique which the House as a whole was not provided the opportunity to prevent and would not have supported, given its contradictions to that oath of allegiance of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The member for Charlesbourg took it upon himself to release a document which contradicted another document originating in this House, the oath of allegiance. He released the communique with all the authority of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Finally, the Reform Party believes that the communique has specifically undermined the institution of Parliament and brought it into disrepute, to use Davidson's words.

The institution of Parliament was brought into disrepute because the Canadian Armed Forces members were forced to compare the

communique to the oath of allegiance which it contradicted. Both documents came from the institution of Parliament, yet they conflict.

The Reform Party agrees with Joseph Maingot, an expert witness on parliamentary privilege, who testified: "The making of an informal charge by the member of the House does not constitute a breach of privilege". He also said: "The freedom of speech that you have in the House is a freedom which the Supreme Court of Canada has set out for over 100 years. The freedom is to bring forth any abuses".

The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt was exercising his right of free speech when he presented his substantive motion containing a specific charge as required in the House according to Maingot's testimony. You, Mr. Speaker, acknowledged the correct manner in which the matter was brought forth and proceeded to allow the House to deal with the matter. Further, Maingot underlined that the House collectively decided the matter was serious enough and forwarded it to the respective committee.

Finally, Maingot assured the committee that the House of Commons has the power to determine contempt of Parliament. We have the power to freely interpret the terms of reference the committee was given and decide what level of contempt of Parliament has been committed.

The Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the question of the timing of the point of privilege raising this matter was moot. Matters relating to the timing of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt's point of privilege were not a consideration as per the terms of reference for the committee.

The committee has not accomplished the work that it had to do, as we see it. The problem we have here is that we are not preparing our country for the next secession debate. The committee has the duty and the responsibility to work toward making it very clear what the privileges of members of this House are in terms of enticing the Canadian Armed Forces during a secession debate.

The Bloc Quebecois is overjoyed with the work of the committee thus far. The committee has shirked its responsibility and skirted the issues in terms of addressing the issues that need to be addressed. Members of this House could very easily be provided by the committee with guidelines which would make it very clear what the proper conduct of members should be in terms of their communications with members of the Canadian Armed Forces as they relate to secession debates.

The committee through the power of this House has the means to direct the defence department to provide our troops with policy guidelines that would assist them during the next secession debate.

The Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals have tried to obfuscate the business and the work the committee has to do. The Bloc has tried to label this work into some kind of separatism on trial. Nothing could be further from the truth. There can be good work done by the committee.

The government and the Bloc should be working toward preparing Canada for that next secession debate and taking a very responsible stand on the issue. In light of that, I move:

That all the words after the word "that" be deleting and the following substituted therefor:

the 22nd report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that they amend the same so as to recommend that, at a minimum, the House find the member for Charlesbourg in contempt of Parliament, and determine appropriate sanctions against the Member; and that in any secession referendum or negotiation the House shall be guided by the principle that any interference with the allegiance of members of the Canadian Armed Forces shall be considered behaviour unacceptable and a contempt of Parliament; and that the government instruct the Department of National Defence to draft policies and regulations to guide its members during any secession referendum or negotiation.

[Privilege, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise with respect to a matter of privilege in the House. It is stated very clearly in Beauchesne's that one of the responsibilities of the Speaker on a matter of privilege is that the Speaker must carefully hear the total story with respect to the privilege so that a judgment can be made whether a question of privilege exists. In order to do that, full and detailed information must be provided.

The hon. member who is making the presentation has to go into the details of the matter in order to completely describe the point of privilege. I know that in her presentation so far she has presented some of the preliminary information, but has not clearly indicated what the privilege is.

Madam Speaker, I refer you to citation 26(3) of Beauchesne's where it states:

When a question of privilege is raised the Speaker's function is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the motion, which the Member who has raised the question desires to move-

That means you must look at it in its entirety. Therefore, I would appreciate the Speaker's reconsideration.

[Privilege, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in light of your ruling and based on the fact that Motion No. 1 is still on the floor before us, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to that matter which is a personal charge against me as contained in the motion put forward by the member.

In a sense that charge is one that is criminal in nature and reflects upon 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 on page 24,027 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 the members of the House there are some who are unworthy to sit there. An allegation of criminal or other dishonourable conduct inevitably affects the member's ability to function effectively while the matter remains unresolved.

The Speaker was concerned with the matter remaining unresolved. I raised a point of order with regard to private member's Motion No. 1 in the name of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

I thank you today for considering that and I appreciate the ruling you have placed before this assembly. This type of motion and the affect of this motion is considered an anomaly of the rules. Although the motion is in order, I would like to demonstrate that its presence infringes upon my and other members' privileges in the Chamber.

The motion accuses me of intimidation and coercing others to intimidate. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell's charge against me is in the form of a motion and so he is allowed on a technicality to get away with what I believe is unparliamentary language.

For the purpose of my question of privilege, the fact that the charge against me is in the form of a motion is immaterial. What is important is that the motion is non-votable. It is non-votable by the virtue of our standing orders. It is unresolvable and therefore prima facie.

I would also like to address at this time the issue of raising this question of privilege at the earliest opportunity. Before raising my point of order regarding Motion No. 1, I felt it necessary that the motion be at least scheduled for debate, and I believe we are at that course of events here today.

The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell agreed with me because despite the impression I was under at the time, the motion was not before the House that day and the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell argued that he ought not bring the matter up until it was before the House. For once I agreed with him. Fortunately I was allowed to present my argument on that day in May.

The fact that the motion of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is a product of our rules led me to originally pursue the matter as a point of order.

At this point my only hope for a remedy to resolve this charge against me a question of privilege because the matter remains unresolved, as you have said so eloquently, Mr. Speaker.

In the ruling I referred to earlier from 1983, the Speaker considered:

The question for the Chair to determine, therefore, is whether the hon. member for Lincoln should seek his remedy through the courts, or whether, in order to bring the matter to a swifter resolution, the Chair should accord this question of privilege precedence over other business.

As you are fully aware, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the luxury of bringing this matter before any court. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is protected by parliamentary privilege.

The Speaker in 1983 had another concern:

Given the precedence I have studied, it is clear to me that while the hon. member could seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a member while this slur upon his reputation remains. The process of litigation would probably be very lengthy and there is no knowing how long it would take before the issue is finally resolved.

Once again there is the emphasis on resolving the matter.

The Speaker was also concerned here with the length of time the matter was to be unresolved. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell could, through a series of trades, avoid debating the motion. If we do finally get a debate on the motion it will disappear from the Order Paper after one hour of debate.

Regardless of those two scenarios, the matter will never be resolved by this motion. My reputation will be hanging out to dry forever. As Speaker Sauvé was concerned with, the entire institution of Parliament will be left under a cloud without ever being resolved.

Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , page 210, states that the practice relating to taking up the conduct of members is a matter of privilege.

If the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell raised this as a question of privilege the matter would have been dealt with, but it was not.

To protect my reputation and the reputation of the House I must raise this matter as a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege I will be moving the following motion:

That the member for Lethbridge and the Reform Party of Canada be exonerated of the allegations levied by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell of attempting to coerce, intimidate or incite others to coerce the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines which are contained in his non-votable private member's Motion No. 1; and that the matter of the use of non-votable motions to charge members with contempt of Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, if you do not consider this a prima facie question of privilege I would appreciate your guidance and maybe that of the law clerk on how I can resolve this allegation against me of criminal intent. I cannot allow this motion to stay on the Order Paper all summer. This charge has been hanging over my head long enough. It must be resolved now.

[Point Of Order, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to proceed today with my question of privilege under the circumstances.

Motion No. 1 is still on the floor of the assembly. Because of that-

[Point Of Order, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, based on your ruling, I would like to rise on a question of privilege.

[Privilege, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with that procedure.