Peter Milliken

[Taking of Recorded Divisions on March 23, March 31st, 2010]

I would like to make a statement about the events which occurred with relation to the recorded divisions taken on March 23, 2010. I would like to thank the hon. whip of the New Democratic Party and the hon. whip of the Bloc Québécois for their interventions on the matter.

During the taking of recorded division No. 12 last Tuesday, several members of the official opposition rose to vote on the motion when the nays had not yet been called. In response to calls from the floor to clarify what members were voting on, I interjected in the middle of the vote to state that I had not yet asked for those opposed to the motion to rise.

Immediately thereafter, the chief opposition whip rose on a point of order seeking to have the votes stricken from the record. I proposed that we conclude taking the Yeas, before proceeding to the taking of the votes on the Nays. The hon. whip of the NDP objected that his party had found itself in a similar situation before, and had been denied consent to change their votes.

Following the taking of the division, further discussion ensued. At that time, the New Democratic Party whip added that it should be the first vote cast that should count.

Before I address the specific issues raised concerning this vote, I would like to confirm that it is our long-standing practice that points of order are not entertained during the taking of a recorded division. Given the high level of noise and confusion surrounding this vote, I accepted to hear points of order in an effort to clarify the situation, but this should not have happened and my actions on this occasion should not be viewed as a precedent. Points of order related to the taking of divisions should continue to be raised after the results of a division are announced.

With regard to the vote taken last week, members may be surprised to learn that it is not unheard of for members to vote twice, that is, both Yea and Nay.

Members should understand that when they rise to vote, the vote caller is obliged to call their names, even if they have already voted. Furthermore, a review of our past practice has failed to provide guidance on how to address this kind of issue. For instance, in some cases, members have simply clarified their intentions and the record was corrected.

I would invite members to consult the Debates of May 7, 2008, at page 5571 and the Debates of December 12, 2007, at page 2118 for examples of that approach.

At other times, consent has been sought to have the votes cast in error to be corrected and recorded as the member actually intended. See the April 9, 2008 Debates at page 4709 for such an occurrence. If consent is granted by the House, the record is corrected; if it is denied, or if the duplication goes unnoticed, the original count showing members voting twice is left unchanged. Examples of such duplicate votes can be found recorded in the Journals of March 5, 2008, division No. 57, and September 28, 2005, division No. 102.

In the case referred to by the whip of the New Democratic Party and the whip of the Bloc Québécois—which as far as the Chair can tell took place during a division taken on October 16, 2006—the House was faced with a significantly different circumstance. Contrary to what happened last week, the votes for the NDP had been counted only once, but on the wrong side of the question. Then, when consent was sought to have their votes recorded differently, consent was denied, just as it was denied last week.

In this case, the House has been consistent in its actions.

The March 23, 2010 Journals show that the names of several members are recorded as having voted both yea and nay for division No. 12 and consent was denied to have those duplicates recorded only as nays. Accordingly, the results of division No. 12 as recorded in the Journals will stand.

However, there appears to have been an error in recording divisions Nos. 13, 14 and 15. I have discussed the matter with the parties and I can now confirm that it was the intention of the House to apply the results of division No. 8, not division No. 12, to votes 13, 14 and 15. I therefore direct that the Journals be corrected accordingly.

I thank all hon. members for their interventions and trust that future votes will proceed smoothly, starting with those this evening.

[Privilege, March 24th, 2010]

I appreciate the submissions of hon. members on this point, but I point out two things that I think are important.

First, whether or not there has been an apology that satisfies the hon. member or all hon. members, I do not think is relevant at this point. In my view, this is a matter of privilege in the committee. It is the privileges of the committee that have been damaged, not of the House.

The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt who has raised this issue had his privileges breached as a member of the committee, and normally committees deal with matters involving their proceedings first. If committee members wish to make a report to the House suggesting that members' privileges have been breached by something that happened in the committee, they can do that. They can come to the House with a report, which the House can then consider. However, the normal practice would be for this to be raised first in committee, where the committee makes a decision on what went wrong and then reports the matter to the House.

Therefore, I would invite the hon. member to return to the next committee meeting and raise this issue there and see if the committee wishes to make a report on the matter to the House. This may result in the matter then being referred to another committee, namely, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for study as a breach of privilege.

However, I do not believe it is for the Speaker to rule on whether what happened in a committee was or was not a breach of members' privileges. It is the normal practice for the committee to deal with that. Hence, I am asking the committee, of which the hon. member is a member, to deal with the matter first.

I sympathize and I think the statements here have been clear. The member says he was not asleep in the committee. I cannot imagine anybody falling asleep in a committee, let alone in the House with the things that go on in this place. I do not think the member should have a worry on that score.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, March 4th, 2010]

Before we proceed with routine proceedings, I have an important statement I would like to make to the House about the result of a vote taken on December 10, 2009, on the motion for third reading of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171).

As hon. members will recall, the announced result was a tie, with 143 members recorded as having voted in favour and 143 members recorded as having voted against. On hearing that the votes were equally divided on the motion, I gave the casting vote in the negative on the procedural grounds that the existing act should be maintained in its current form in order to uphold the status quo.

Since then, it was brought to the attention of the Table that a member had been erroneously counted as having voted yea. Further verifications were made to confirm that an error had in fact been made, namely that the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence had remained seated throughout the vote.

As hon. members will realize, if this yea vote had not been counted in error, events would have unfolded differently. No tie vote would have occurred. No casting vote would have been required. However, and most significantly, the outcome of the vote remains the same. The motion for third reading of Bill C-291 remains defeated, but on a vote of 142 yeas and 143 nays.

Accordingly, in keeping with precedents for when such errors are discovered, I am informing the House that a corrigendum was published on December 30 to correct the Journals of December 10, 2009, so that the true result of the vote may be properly reflected in our official records.

I thank hon. members for their attention to this detail. It is an important one from the point of view of the number of casting votes the Chair has to cast in the House.

[Business of the House, March 3rd, 2010]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business. Standing Order 86.1 states that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that have been listed on the order paper during the previous session shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 40th Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

All items will keep the same number as in the first and second sessions of the 40th Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the order paper, but had not yet been introduced, will be republished on the order paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be re-certified by the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

All items in the order of precedence are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation. Thus, they shall stand, if necessary, on the order paper in the same place or, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

At prorogation, there were 11 private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to the appropriate committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97, committees will be required to report on these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, one private members’ bill originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted this bill.

As they are no longer members of this House, all the items standing in the name of Ms. Dawn Black, Mr. Bill Casey and Mr. Paul Crête will be dropped from the order paper.

Consideration of Private Members’ Business will start on Friday, March 5, 2010.

To conclude, hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in the third session. In addition, the table can answer any questions members may have.

[Privilege, December 10th, 2009]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 30, 2009, by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh concerning the inability of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to obtain documents requested from the Head of Correctional Service of Canada in advance of the committee’s clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as is described in the 14th Report of the committee which was presented to the House on November 26, 2009.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh for having raised this matter. I would also like to thank the members for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Mississauga South, the government House leader, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, as well as the Minister of Public Safety for their interventions.

In presenting his case, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh gave a detailed account of his attempts to ascertain whether the information which a witness, Mr. Don Head of Correctional Service of Canada, had committed to provide to the committee prior to its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36 on November 16 had indeed been provided.

Although the information requested of Mr. Head, the sole source of this information, had been prepared in a timely manner and forwarded to the office of the Minister of Public Safety, it was not until November 23, 2009, the day that Bill C-36 was considered at third reading in the House that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh received an undated copy of a letter containing the information in question. The rest of the committee received a dated version of the same letter on November 25, 2009, the day after the House finished the third reading debate on the bill.

In alleging interference by the minister's office, either through incompetence or deliberate intent, the hon. member questioned the role of ministers in supplying information to committees and concluded that his work as a member of Parliament had been impeded.

This argument was supported by the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the hon. member for Mississauga South, and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

On December 1, 2009, the Minister of Public Safety rose in the House to apologize unreservedly for the unwarranted delay caused by his office in transmitting the requested information from Mr. Head to the committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), it is a well-established and unequivocal power of all committees of the House to order the production of papers and records. Page 978, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, describes this as “a broad, absolute power”, and at page 979, it states:

No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.

When a committee's attempt to obtain information is unsuccessful, there are essentially three options available. As outlined on page 980 of O'Brien and Bosc:

The first is to accept the reasons and conditions put forward to justify the refusal...The second is to seek an acceptable compromise with the author or the authority responsible for access to the record...The third option is to reject the reasons given for denying access to the record and uphold the order to produce the entire record.

Accordingly, it is then incumbent upon committee members to avail themselves of these options which are designed specifically to ensure that a committee’s power to secure information is not circumvented.

In the case at hand, it is the view of the Chair that the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh could have proposed a motion to have the committee report to the House the fact that the information requested had not been received, and request that the House compel the production of that information. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, sets out this process when it notes, on pages 980 to 981:

Since committees do not have the disciplinary power to sanction failure to comply with their order to produce records, they can choose to report the situation to the House and request that appropriate measures be taken. Among the options available to the House is to endorse, with or without amendment, the committee’s order to produce records, thus making it a House order.

By failing to follow this prescribed course of action, the hon. member is asking the House to do that which the committee itself was required to do to remedy this situation. The Chair must note that the committee in question did not come back to the House to request for an order of the House to produce specific papers. As with all claims pertaining to a breach of privilege, the standard which must be demonstrated is whether the member has been impeded in the fulfillment of his or her duties and functions by some action or omission.

As outlined in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in the submission of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, and through the admission of the Minister of Public Safety, there is no denying that the information failed to reach the committee within the specified time. However, it is equally clear that the proceedings on the bill were nonetheless able to continue, with members’ full participation.

Seeing that neither the committee nor the House appeared to share the view of the hon. member that they needed the requested information in order to complete their deliberations on the bill, I cannot find that a prima facie case exists in this matter.

In this case I will dismiss the matter, but I thank the House for its attention to this ruling.

[Points of Order, December 10th, 2009]

I have carefully considered all the arguments that have been advanced. First, I should cite to hon. members the citations that have been read by the hon. member for Mount Royal in his argument, largely.

On page 978-979 of O'Brien and Bosc, I will quote again:

The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the type of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist—in hard copy or electronic format—and that they are located in Canada....No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in the House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.

I go back also to page 136 of O'Brien and Bosc, to further this:

By virtue of the Preamble in section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament has the ability to institute its own inquiries, to require the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents, rights which are fundamental to its proper functioning. These rights are as old as Parliament itself. Maingot states:

The only limitations, which could only be self-imposed, would be that any inquiry should relate to a subject within the legislative competence of Parliament, particularly where witnesses and documents are required and the penal jurisdiction of Parliament is contemplated. This dovetails with the right of each House of Parliament to summon and compel the attendance of all persons within the limits of their jurisdiction.

Therefore, in the circumstances and on the face of it, a motion to demand the production of papers is entirely in order. The question is whether it can be done on a supply day, as suggested by the parliamentary secretary in his submission.

The Chair has intervened once on a supply day, to prevent the supply day from being used as a vehicle for restricting debate on a bill, because it was something that was allowed for in other parts of the Standing Orders and so on, and then fitted in there. However, I believe this motion, which is demanding that documents be tabled in the House, is something that could reasonably be requested on a supply day.

It is not a procedural motion in that sense. It is demanding the production of documents. Supply motions have called on the government to do things. They have expressed House opinions on various things in the past and in my view, this one fits within that. Accordingly, in accordance with our practice in respect to supply days, I feel the motion is in order and will allow it to proceed.

It is unfortunate, if I may make this comment, that arrangements were not made in committee to settle this matter there, where these requests were made and where there might have been some agreement on which documents and which format would be tabled or made available to members. How they were to be produced or however it was to be done, I do not know, but obviously that has not happened.

We now have this motion here, and it seems to me the House has the power to do what a committee can do and then some. A committee could have requested this and demanded the production of these materials. The House can also do whatever a committee can do and then some. Accordingly I feel the motion is in order and I will allow the matter to proceed.

[Privilege, December 9th, 2009]

I am dealing with this question of privilege at the moment. I do not think I need to hear more on the same point.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Outremont for his speech, but I would like to emphasize one thing. He raised more points than were included in the letter I received. Nevertheless, I will consider all of the points that he raised here in the House.

Let us begin with the question of privilege that he raised concerning the noise that he claims prevented the committee from doing its work. Yes, I was there last night and I heard the noise. What he says is true. First, I would note that the committee did not submit a complaint about the noise. It was not in the report presented in the House today. That being said, as the member stated, I went to the room and I know that the committee moved from that room to room 112-N, where it resumed its work.

I must also point out that someone told me the noise was being made by a political party that had organized a party in the corridor near where the committee was meeting. Obviously, the people who organized the party did not choose to have the committee meet in a room right next to where the party was being held. I do not know all the details, but the committee was supposed to have met elsewhere, as we found out later.

I will draw the attention of the House to the text of the motion, which states that:

not more than four hours following the adoption of the second reading motion, any proceedings before the committee to which the bill stands referred shall be interrupted

The special motion did not specify that the committee had to meet for four hours. It simply placed a limit on how long they could meet. They were allowed to meet for two, three or four hours. They were not allowed to meet for more than four hours, but they were allowed to meet for fewer than four hours if the members so desired.

I would now like to turn to the matter of the motion that was deemed out of order because it was beyond the scope of Bill C-62.

The member himself says that this is at heart a constitutional question, and he, I am sure, is aware that the Speaker does not decide such matters of law. The courts deal with those in due course, if and when those matters come before them.

Meanwhile, I would like to assure the hon. member with regard to the work of the official who responded to the motions he had submitted to the Journals Branch for consideration at report stage, I am entirely in agreement with the decisions taken there.

I should stress that in the interests of efficiency, our practice provides for the Speaker to delegate to his officials various responsibilities with regard to items within the rules for which the Speaker has authority, or is given authority or is said to be the person who makes those decisions. Members have the right to question the decisions, as the hon. member is doing, and I am going to respond to what he said.

Let me explain first that I think it is important to note that the bill seeks to amend the Excise Tax Act in order to implement the new harmonized value-added sales tax system. The amendment the hon. member submitted last night at the Journals Branch proposed a continuation of existing exemptions that were not provided for in the agreements on which the bill is based, and are not related to the provisions of the bill itself.

This represents a new concept, which, in the opinion of the chair, is beyond the scope of the bill. For that reason, the proposed amendment was rejected when it was submitted last evening.

Three other amendments that the hon. member proposed have been put to the House. I put them a short time ago. They are in order and they will be proceeded with.

As well, the former amendment sought to impose mandatory exemptions on participating provinces not contained in existing federal-provincial agreements. Again, I believe that is contrary to the principle of the bill.

Accordingly, for these reasons, the motion in my view was out of order and, consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(2), the amendment was returned to the member without having appeared in the notice paper. I believe it was entirely in accordance with our practice.

I know the hon. member stressed in his argument that the Speaker was the one who should make these decisions, not someone else; but I stress that in my 21 years here, I have never been aware of the Speaker ever making a decision in respect of those matters. They were dealt with by officials, unless the officials had a particular problem and were worried that the decision might not be correct, and they might then consult with the Speaker. Normally the decision is made by those officials. If members have objections, of course, they are raised as points of order in the House and the Speaker will make a final decision.

However, in this case, as I have indicated, I believe the decision was correct. Accordingly, I do not think the member's privileges have been breached in this case.

[Points of Order, December 3rd, 2009]

With respect to the point of order that was raised, it has been suggested that the motion that I just read is out of order because it is not in conformity with the practices of the House.

The House is master of its own procedure. The Standing Orders of the House, which are our rules, are adopted by the House and are used by it and the Chair as the rules of the House. However, the House is free to adopt a special order on any occasion that it wishes to do so, which can change those rules either permanently or on a temporary basis, or in respect of a single bill, or in respect of a special committee, or any other purpose.

Members of the House are free to agree upon and make changes in the rules of our practice, which we do frequently, often by unanimous consent, but sometimes without unanimous consent, because a motion is introduced and changes are made.

On February 23, 2007 the government introduced a motion. It read in part, “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, a bill in the name of the Minister of Labour” had special provisions set out that dealt with the disposition of that bill in the House.

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh raised a point of order on that occasion, arguing that the motion was not in order, that it was contrary to our practice. He made a very able argument, but he ran into difficulty because the ruling from the chair said that his argument was not a good one. I will quote my ruling if I may. I do not like quoting myself, but I am happy to do so in this case. I said:

I am concerned about his reference to the fact that a majority of the parties in the House have not agreed to something and therefore that something may not be in order. The House decides matters, not by party but by votes, by the number of members supporting or rejecting a motion. In my view, that is the way the House operates and will continue to operate.

What we have here is a motion that has been put forward to the House to make changes in the rules in respect of one bill. If the House decides that it wants to do that after a vote by the members of this House, it seems to me that it is entirely within the jurisdiction of the House to do it. It is not for the Speaker to say that the motion is out of order because it does something that the rules do not allow for.

The rules do allow us to make changes to the rules whenever we want, and we do it on a fairly regular basis. We had a rule change today to allow statements by ministers at 3 o'clock instead of this morning at 10 o'clock. That was not a problem; members agreed to it and it happened.

We now have a proposal to make changes to the rules that apply to a particular bill that has been introduced in the House and is now going to be the subject of debate under different rules perhaps than other bills are. I have just read the long thing. It is tedious, but there it is.

In my view, it is a matter that can be brought to the House for debate and it should be discussed by the House and then ultimately voted upon by the House, as I am sure it will be when the debate concludes.

Thus in my view, the motion before us is in order. I now call upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who wishes to make a speech on this matter.

[Privilege, November 30th, 2009]

I thank hon. members for their submissions on this point, but I think I have heard enough for the time being to deal with it.

I thank the hon. members from all parties who made submissions on this point. We have before us today the third report of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. The report is very brief. I can read it again. It states:

That the Committee believes a serious breach of privilege has occurred and members’ rights have been violated, that the Government of Canada, particularly the Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, have intimidated a witness of this Committee, and obstructed and interfered with the Committee's work and with the papers requested by this Committee.

My ruling last week on the point raised by the hon. member for St. John's East was cited by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence in his response to the request for a question of privilege to be dealt with. I will again cite the quotation that I used from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, page 151, which is also from Chapter 3 that everyone has been referring to today. It states:

If, in the opinion of the Chair—

--and this is the chair of the committee--

—the issue raised relates to privilege (or if an appeal should overturn a Chair’s decision that it does not touch on privilege), the committee can proceed to the consideration of a report on the matter to the House. The Chair will entertain a motion which will form the text of the report. It should clearly describe the situation, summarize the events, name any individuals involved, indicate that privilege may be involved or that a contempt may have occurred, and request the House to take some action. The motion is debatable and amendable--

--and so on.

The point is that this report, in my view, is inadequate. It does not provide the details on which the House can make a decision on privilege. One may be forthcoming from the committee. The committee is free to do this at another meeting and come in with a detailed report that meets the requirements of our practice, but in my view it has failed to do so in the report that we have received today.

There are no names of any individuals involved. I understand the committee is receiving more material as we are discussing this. I do not know when the committee is meeting, but undertakings have been given that more material will be filed. The committee is calling other witnesses.

It seems to me that we should have a report from the committee that outlines in detail the alleged breach, what has or has not been tabled, which witnesses have been intimidated and which have not, and those sorts of things. These are not here in this report and, in my view, they ought to be. Until they are, I do not think I can make a finding that there has been a breach of privilege.

I need the details provided to the House in a report. The Speaker then makes a finding on that report. That is the practice outlined in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Then a motion can be moved.

Otherwise, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, any committee can pass a motion like this, send something back here saying that it looks as though there has been a breach of privilege and ask the Speaker to make a finding and therefore in effect order an emergency debate that takes priority over other business of the House. It is important that if the Speaker is going to make a finding of a breach of privilege of members of the House, there be a detailed report from the committee indicating what the alleged breach is. We do not have that at the moment.

By saying no today, I am not saying there will not be a finding later if material is brought to the House, but in my view the committee report as it stands is inadequate for this purpose. It needs to have considerable further detail in it. I would hope that the committee, in its deliberations, will come up with a list of things that it needs or that it feels are inappropriate and that it will get those in testimony from the witnesses whom it calls.

Therefore, when the information is available, I trust that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre or other hon. members who are members of the committee will be back in the House with a report asking the Chair to make a ruling in respect of privilege with regard to that report. I believe the Chair requires further information in accordance with our practice to make such a finding and cannot make it just because the committee majority thinks there has been a breach without then providing some information on which the Speaker can base a finding of a breach of privilege of hon. members.

I will leave the matter at that for the time being.

[Privilege, November 26th, 2009]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 19, 2009, by the hon. member for Mount Royal concerning the mailing of a ten percenter to some of his constituents by the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London comparing the positions of the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada on certain aspects of Canada's policy in the Middle East.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Mount Royal for having raised this important matter. I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Whip of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Windsor West, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Eglinton—Lawrence for their comments.

In outlining his case, the hon. member for Mount Royal stated that a mailing purporting to contain information on three issues, namely, fighting anti-Semitism, fighting terrorism and supporting Israel, was sent to some of his constituents, as well as to other ridings with identifiable Jewish communities.

The member went on to claim that this mailing was not only, in the words of the hon. member, “false and misleading”, but also “slanderous, damaging and prejudicial” to the Liberal Party and, by extension, himself.

This argument was supported by the Whip for the Bloc Québécois, the hon. member for Windsor West, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

In response, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister explained in some detail the content of the ten percenter in question and defended its veracity. For his part, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons pointed out that all parties are engaged in this style of communication.

As hon. members know, in deciding on a question of privilege, the Speaker is not charged with determining the facts; the Chair's ruling is limited to whether on first impression, prima facie, the matter before the House merits priority consideration. In cases where a member alleges that he has experienced interference in the performance of his parliamentary duties, the Speaker's task is particularly difficult. As O'Brien and Bosc states at page 111:

It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of member of Parliament, the intimidation of members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information.

The Chair has examined the numerous documents submitted in this case. Having heard all the arguments presented, I must agree with several members who suggested that there is no denying the critical role that context played in shaping the cumulative net effect of the words used in this mailing. In my view, the end result was a negative effect that spilled over to the member for Mount Royal in a very direct and personal way.

It is not for the Chair to comment either way on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the comparisons drawn on the bulk mailing complained of by the member for Mount Royal. That said, however, the Chair has no difficulty concluding that any reasonable person reading the mailing in question, and this would, of course, include the constituents of Mount Royal, would have likely been left with an impression at variance with the member's long-standing and well-known position on these matters.

Therefore, I must conclude that the member for Mount Royal, on the face of it, has presented a convincing argument that the mailing constitutes interference with his ability to perform his parliamentary functions in that its content is damaging to his reputation and his credibility.

Consistent with the ruling given on November 19, 2009 in relation to the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and with other rulings in relation to mailings in 2005, and I suggest hon. members look at the ruling on November 3, 2005, pages 9489-90 of the Debates, the Chair finds that a prima facie question of privilege does exist. I therefore invite the hon. member for Mount Royal to move his motion.