Peter Milliken

[Election of Speaker, November 18th, 2008]

Hon. members, I beg to return my humble acknowledgement to the House for the great honour you have been pleased to confer upon me by choosing me to be your Speaker.

Thank you very much, my dear colleagues. It is a pleasure to be back here. I have looked forward to it for a while now, since the election was over on October 14. As I said earlier today in my remarks to you, I want to thank you for your support today, but also to welcome the new members to the House.

I know that there are more than 60 new members. Welcome to the House and I hope that your experience as members in this wonderful place will be great for both you and the constituents who elected you.

I want to also thank the electors of Kingston and the Islands who returned me to the House again. I see there are a number of us from the class of '88 here today. I know we have all enjoyed the experience except that we are dwindling in numbers. That is part of it, but the experience on the whole is excellent. I want to say what a treat it has been to work in the House of Commons for all these years and to be back after this last election.

I want to thank the electors of Kingston and the Islands for sending me back once more. It is a pleasure working with them and serving them in the House.

I also want to thank you for all the support you have given me over the last seven years as your Speaker. I have enjoyed my opportunities to meet and discuss issues with you.

Sometimes each party has a different opinion on certain questions asked of the Speaker. However, even that provides us with an opportunity to share ideas and work together.

I hope that the party leaders in the House and I, and all of the other members, if necessary, can start working together tomorrow as usual to organize House business, at least from a procedural point of view.

I hope we can arrange to make the chamber more orderly and I know the new members will urge their noisier colleagues to tone things down so we can have quieter, more productive chamber. That is our hope.

Finally, if I may, I would like to point out the presence of my family members in the gallery today. I usually do this on this occasion. My mother is here for the fourth time for this election. Three of my sisters and my brother are also here, Katherine, Amanda, Elizabeth and Bill. I am delighted they are here, and I see some of my in-laws as well as my niece and nephew. I thank them for being here today.

It is always a bit of a show here in the House and I am sure they have enjoyed it.

To all members, I express my profound thanks. Might I suggest that if, after a few other comments, members would care to drop by the office behind here for a little refreshment, we would be pleased to welcome all hon. members.

Before the Prime Minister speaks, there is one little procedural matter to deal with.

And the mace having been laid upon the table:

[Election of Speaker, November 18th, 2008]

My dear colleagues, it is a pleasure to be here in this House once again as the 40th Parliament begins.

Last October, Canadians elected their third minority government in four years. So, here we are sitting in this House having the privilege and responsibility of serving our fellow citizens in Parliament. We have an important decision to make today in choosing one of us to preside over this House during this Parliament.

You have before you a number of candidates from three of the parties represented in the House, all of whom have expressed the desire to represent you as your Speaker. They wish to offer their services to the House because, as has been mentioned, the Speaker is a servant of the House.

I have no doubt that the other hon. members who have let their names stand for this position have all done so because they are motivated by a sincere concern for making Parliament work. It is, after all, the role of the Speaker to preside in the House and try to make our House effective and functional. These motives as well as their previous experience, I am sure, have helped them get elected as representatives of the people in their constituencies, as has been the case for all of us in this House.

That being said, in my view, in a minority House there are certain circumstances that require expertise, not merely experience, and I think it is important to have these two reflected in the choice of Speaker. A minority government or Parliament brings with it a series of challenges, politically, of course, but also on the logistical, administrative and procedural side.

In this Parliament we will have a number of challenges. In my view, a minority Parliament is best served by a Speaker who can balance the rights of the members to fulfill their parliamentary obligations with the necessity of maintaining order in the House, and there is a balance between these two.

There have been many concerns expressed by other colleagues who are presenting their names today and in the media concerning the issue of decorum in this chamber. I agree that decorum has gone down somewhat, but I do not believe that is uncommon in a minority Parliament, because there is a lot of competition going on in the House.

These issues are going to be raised here, and there is bound to be some disorder when issues are raised, but the person who is elected to be the Speaker must be able to count on hon. members to share in the responsibility for maintaining order in the House. It is all of our responsibility to do that.

Without the goodwill and express support of members on all sides, it is very difficult for a person occupying the chair to in fact impose order. In my view no amount of interference or chastisement of members will impose order that does not exist, unless the members themselves wish to have order in the House, so it is important that we work together in that connection.

If you do me the honour of selecting me to be Speaker of the House, I will bring to the task not only my 20 years of experience as a member, but also my experience, since 2001, as Speaker. Despite being a member of the opposition, I presided over the previous Parliament because the members elected me Speaker. I appreciate the support I received when I was elected in 2006, and I hope to be given another mandate for this Parliament.

I thank you for all your past support in doing this job. It would have been impossible for a Speaker to continue working without the support of all members. The Speaker is the servant of the House.

For your past support, I thank you. I hope that you will continue to keep me in this job to work as your Speaker in this Parliament. I would appreciate the opportunity. I enjoy working with every one of you.

I truly appreciate your support in past years. Thank you very much.

[Points of Order, June 20th, 2008]

The Chair is prepared to rule on this matter. I have heard plenty of arguments, and I am quite prepared to make a ruling and deal with this issue at this moment.

Unfortunately, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington did not come up with any precedents where Speakers had made the ruling he is asking me to make in suspending this committee from operation until a ruling is made on the point of order. However, I am having no difficulty in making a ruling on the point of order today, and I stress that the past practice in this regard is, in my view, quite clear.

I will read from Marleau and Montpetit at page 804:

Committees, as creations of the House of Commons, only possess the authority, structure and mandates that have been delegated to them by the House. These are found in the standing and special orders which the House has adopted concerning committees. The House has specified that, in relationship to standing, special or legislative committees, “the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and length of speeches”.

With these exceptions, committees are bound to follow the procedures set out in the Standing Orders as well as any specific sessional or special orders that the House has issued to them. Committees are otherwise left free to organize their work. In this sense, committees are said to be “masters of their own proceedings”.

What we have in this case is a situation where the chair of the committee made a decision, which I understand was appealed to the committee and the majority of the committee upheld the chair's ruling.

It was a decision made by the committee as a group. If I have an opinion about the committee's decision, I can do nothing about it until the decision is forwarded to the House in a report. It is only in such cases that the Speaker of the House has the authority to do something about a committee. There is no other precedent in this regard.

I do not make rulings whether committees have to meet or not meet. I have no power to direct a committee to do something until its report has come here and I make a ruling on the report. I have made a ruling on one. The chief government whip, in his argument, pointed out a report that came here. I ruled the report out of order and that a motion to concur in the report would be out of order, and I chucked it. I can do that if the committee brings in a report, but it has not.

Members are asking me to decide that the decision of the chair of the committee or, alternatively, the decision of the committee itself, because there was a vote in the committee, is somehow improper, and that therefore, I can overrule it or stop it from proceeding. I do not believe that I have that power.

Indeed, no Speaker previously in any precedent that has been quoted to me has exercised that kind of power.

Accordingly, I do not believe this is a point of order. I do not believe it is well founded. I believe that it is something that has to be resolved in the committee. Committees are masters of their own procedure. They can proceed as they wish, within limits. It is when they come back to the House that they run into trouble.

I point out for the benefit of hon. members that in the old days prorogation was a standard feature at the end of a session in June and the House would start a new session in the autumn. That used to be the case all the time until the seventies when that was kind of abandoned.

Second, in the old days, committees could not sit when the House was not sitting. They were only allowed to sit when the House was sitting. Hon. members, I am sure, are familiar with the rules of the Senate, which are perhaps a little older than ours in this sense, where if the Senate has adjourned for more than a week, a committee needs the consent of the Senate in advance in order to sit during that week. A whole bunch of motions were passed in the Senate the other day permitting sittings of committees between now and next Thursday when the Senate is sitting again because it adjourned for more than a week.

Members can change the rules of the House and make impossible for the House committees to sit when we are adjourned if they want to, but we significantly expanded the powers of committees years ago. It is not for the Speaker, in my view, to sit here and decide what powers committees have.

The House itself decided to grant all kinds of powers to its committees. It may not have happened during this parliament, but the members of the House of Commons have decided in the past to act otherwise. Now we have Standing Orders adopted by the House. It is the Speaker's duty to apply these Standing Orders.

In my opinion, the Standing Orders are in place. I have nothing in front of me at this point that I can say regarding the business of this committee because there is no report upon which to base a decision.

I believe that is the end of that matter.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park has a question of privilege and the Chair has received notice of that. It arises out of the same committee proceedings, so I will hear his question of privilege now.

[Privilege, June 17th, 2008]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River on May 26, 2008, regarding the report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in relation to the hon. member for West Nova.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for having raised the matter and I would also like to thank the hon. government House leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and the hon. member for Mississauga South for their interventions.

In raising this question of privilege, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River underlined the importance of the privileges of freedom of speech and the right to vote for members, privileges that are of such fundamental significance that they are claimed explicitly by the Speaker at the beginning of each Parliament. It was with this in mind that he questioned the validity of the Conflict of Interest Code for members being interpreted in such a way as to limit unduly the freedom of speech and right to vote in the House and in committee not only of the member for West Nova but of all members. This concern was echoed by the members for Winnipeg Centre and Mississauga South.

The member for Scarborough—Rouge River took issue with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioners contention that being a defendant in a libel suit was tantamount to having a private interest since this interpretation would open the way to limiting the rights of members through the simple act of filing a lawsuit.

Specifically, he challenged the interpretation given by the commissioner of the term liability as used in the code, claiming that the commissioner's extension of the meaning of the word liability to include the sort of contingent liability represented by being named defendant in a libel suit was unreasonable.

In his remarks, the government House leader pointed out that the rights to free speech and to vote were not absolute and in support of this view, he cited a passage from page 26 of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, wherein it is indicated clearly that there are limits to the privileges enjoyed by members. He stated that the House itself established the code and gave to the Ethics Commissioner the authority to interpret it.

Further, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that if members feel that the Code requires amendment, this ought not to be accomplished under the guise of a question of privilege but rather through the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, whose mandate it is to review the Code.

It should be noted at the outset that no one is suggesting that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, in her consideration of the present case, did not recognize the importance of the rights and privileges of members. Nor was any concern expressed that she had not exercised the highest standards of diligence or that she had not acted in good faith.

As Speaker, I am profoundly aware both of the importance of the particular rights and privileges which members are accorded in order to allow them to carry out their functions and of the special responsibility that I have in that regard. My role in relation to privilege is very clear.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice contains several key passages which will be of interest to the House. First, at p. 261, Marleau and Montpetit states that:

It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution.

Further, at p. 262, it goes on to say that:

The duty of the Speaker is to ensure that the right of members to free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent—

Then, at page 125 there is the following guidance to the Chair when it is deliberating on whether there are sufficient grounds to find a case of prima facie privilege:

—the Chair will take into account the extent to which the matter complained of infringed upon any member’s ability to perform his or her parliamentary duties.

This brings me to the questions raised by the government House leader regarding the propriety of attempting to remedy the current situation via a question of privilege. The hon. government House leader is quite correct in pointing out that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has a mandate to review and report on the Standing Orders and the Conflict of Interest Code. However, it must be pointed out that there are other paths available to the House to effect changes to the Standing Orders or to the code and that the House has on occasion seen fit to take them. Ultimately the fundamental requirement for any change to our Standing Orders or by extension to the Conflict of Interest Code, which is an appendix to our Standing Orders, is that any such change must agreed to by the House as a whole.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 215:

Although the means by which the House reviews the Standing Orders vary greatly, the Standing Orders may be added to, changed or repealed only by a decision of the House, which is arrived at either by way of consensus or by a simple majority vote on a motion moved by any member of the House.

The reference given for this passage is a ruling by Mr. Speaker Fraser in Debates, April 9, 1991, pp. 19236-7.

An example of this freedom each member has may be found in the order paper where there is at present a motion to amend the Standing Orders standing in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot.

The Chair notes, as additional information before the House, that in the case at hand no mechanism is in place that guarantees an opportunity for the House to disagree with a report such as the one at the centre of this question of privilege. Although there are provisions for a debate on concurrence in the report in the usual fashion, no deadline exists to bring such a motion, were it to be moved, to a vote. All that the code provides for, in section 28(10), is for the automatic concurrence in such report after 30 sitting days after the day on which the report is tabled provided the question has not been disposed of earlier.

Let me turn now to the substance of this question of privilege, namely the impact of this report by the Commissioner on the ability of members to carry out their parliamentary duties.

There is the suggestion, not entirely unfounded in my view, that unless steps are taken to clarify the notion of liability in the Code, the mere launching of a libel suit will now be sufficient to limit members’ freedom of speech and their ability to vote.

It is this particular aspect of the situation which the Chair finds most problematic from a procedural point of view since, as was noted, the current case carries with it the very real potential of affecting every member of the House.

I want to stress that as your Speaker I am not being asked to pass judgment on the decision of the commissioner in this case. Rather, the Speaker is being asked, given the facts presented, to determine whether, on the face of it, the matter is sufficiently grave and of immediate consequence for members to warrant consideration by the House on a priority basis.

I put it to the House that when the mere filing of a libel suit against a member, whatever the ultimate disposition of the suit may be, has the effect of placing restrictions on the ability of that member to speak and to vote in the House and in committee, it appears reasonable to conclude that the privileges of all members are immediately placed in jeopardy.

These privileges are not absolute. For as the government House leader has pointed out, members themselves have agreed to impose certain limitations on them. In fact, there was further agreement on this matter the other day when a motion was passed on a supply day dealing with this very issue.

Nonetheless, I believe it remains my duty as your Speaker to ensure that all measures to safeguard their very existence are taken. This is particularly true in the circumstances before us where an interpretation of the rules that we have adopted entails consequences which appear to be so obviously unintended by the very members who created the rules.

For these reasons, I believe the matter has met the necessary conditions to be given priority consideration by the House. Accordingly I rule that this is a prima facie matter of privilege and I invite the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River to move his motion.

[Privilege, June 12th, 2008]

I think I have heard enough on this point because, in my view, it is quite easily disposed of from the House at this stage.

I would like to thank the hon. members who made submissions on this point.

However, the issue here is a report from this committee, not a report that is before the House. We are talking about a report from this committee.

In my view, if there is a question of privilege here, it is one that has to be dealt with first in the committee whose subcommittee's report got leaked. The normal practice in these matters is to raise the matter in the committee. If there has been a breach of the privileges of the committee, or if some member has breached the privileges of the committee, the committee will do a report to the House. Then we can have a motion for concurrence in the report here in the House and a ruling from the Speaker can be sought as to whether the matter constitutes a question of privilege in the House when the report from the committee arrives.

In the meantime, we have not heard from the committee. The committee may not regard this as a breach of its privileges. Until the committee reports on that, since it was a subcommittee, I do not feel it is a matter for the Speaker to adjudicate upon, especially when the Speaker has not seen the report and cannot tell whether there has been a leak or whether this is something somebody has made up.

In the circumstances, I would suggest the hon. members who have this complaint raise the matter in the committee. If the committee finds there is a breach of privilege, we will hear about it in the House when the committee reports back. Until that time, I do not feel that it is a matter for a decision from the Chair. Accordingly, I feel there is no point of order or question of privilege arising out of the alleged, and I say “alleged” deliberately here, leak from the subcommittee.

Accordingly, we will move on to orders of the day.

[Private Members' Business, June 10th, 2008]

The Chair has a statement to make regarding the management of private members' business.

After a replenishment of the Order of Precedence, the Chair has developed the practice of reviewing these new items so that the House can be alerted to bills which, at first glance, appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown. The aim of this practice is to allow members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, following the June 4 replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that Bill C-499, An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, standing in the name of the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, as well as Bill C-550, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave), standing in the name of the member for Compton—Stanstead, give the Chair some concern as to the spending provisions they contemplate.

I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation in these cases, that is Bill C-499 and Bill C-550, or in the case of any of the other bills now on the Order of Precedence, to do so at an early opportunity.

Also, I would like to take this opportunity to make a brief statement regarding Bill C-474, An Act to require the development and implementation of a National Sustainable Development Strategy, the reporting of progress against a standard set of environmental indicators and the appointment of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development accountable to Parliament, and to adopt specific goals with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley West, which was already on the order of precedence.

The Chair would like to remind members of a ruling made on February 11, 2008. In that ruling I stated that the bill in its form at that time needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The Chair notes that the hon. member for Don Valley West had expressed the desire to work with the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to overcome this difficulty.

On June 5, 2008 the committee reported the bill with amendments. The Chair has carefully examined these amendments and confirms that the bill, as amended, no longer requires a royal recommendation. Consequently, debate may proceed and, when appropriate, all necessary questions to dispose of the bill will be put.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 21 minutes.

[Privilege, May 29th, 2008]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt and the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina on May 15, 2008, concerning the Department of Citizenship and Immigration’s newspaper advertisements entitled “Reducing Canada’s Immigration Backlog”.

I would like to thank the hon. members for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention.

In his remarks, the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt brought to the attention of the House that advertisements had been placed in newspapers by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration regarding proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He contended that the advertisements promoted certain changes to the act as contained in section 6 of Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.

As hon. members know, Bill C-50 has not yet been adopted by this House or by Parliament. The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt argued that these advertisements and the use of public funds to pay for them demonstrated contempt for this House on the part of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

In her submission, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina also contended that these advertisements constituted a contempt of Parliament by presenting misleading information that has obstructed and prejudiced the proceedings of this House. The hon. member likened this situation to a case in 1989 when the government of the day placed an advertisement in newspapers to announce changes to the federal sales tax, which had not been adopted yet by Parliament.

In support of the contention that the use of public funds for these ads constituted a contempt of Parliament, the hon. member cited an October 17, 1980 ruling by Madam Speaker Sauvé regarding an advertising campaign on the government's constitutional position.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued, for his part, that the question of privilege was not raised at the earliest available opportunity since the advertisements in question had first appeared in newspapers on April 15. To support this point, he quoted passages from House of Commons Procedure and Practice on pages 122 and 124 which state that the Speaker must be satisfied that a question of privilege was raised at the earliest opportunity.

In addressing the issue of the use of public money, the government House leader stated that the funds used were not dependent on the passage of Bill C-50 but, in fact, had been approved in March of this year as part of interim supply.

In addition, he maintained that the advertisements were written in such a way as to take into account what he described as the core principle of Mr. Speaker Fraser's 1989 ruling, that is:

...that advertising undertaken by the government should not presume or suggest that a decision had been made already when it had not been taken by the House of Commons or by Parliament.

He stressed that words and the tone used in the advertisements fully respected the jurisdiction and privileges of Parliament since they did not presume that Parliament had already taken a decision on the matter. To that end, he quoted from the advertisements in question.

In assessing the merits of any question of privilege raised in the House, the Chair is always mindful of the important point raised by the government House leader regarding timing. It is true that members wishing to raise a question of privilege must do so at the earliest opportunity.

However, there is an important nuance the government House leader may have overlooked. In this case, as in others, it is not so much that the event or issue complained of took place at a given time, but rather that the members bringing the matter to the attention of the House did so as soon as practicable after they became aware of the situation.

The Chair has always exercised discretion on this point given the need to balance the need for timeliness with the important responsibility members have of marshalling facts and arguments before raising matters of such import in the House.

In the case at hand, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was asked about the advertisements when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on the afternoon of Tuesday, May 13, less than two days before the matter was raised in the House. Given these circumstances, I am satisfied that the members for Scarborough—Agincourt and Trinity—Spadina have respected the timing requirements of our established procedure for raising questions of privilege.

The Chair must now determine whether or not the placement of the advertisements related to certain provisions of Bill C-50 has interfered with the ability of members to carry out their responsibilities as members of Parliament. In doing so, the cases cited by the member for Trinity—Spadina have been most instructive.

As Mr. Speaker Fraser stated in his ruling in the Debates of October 10, 1989, on pages 4457 to 4461:

In order for an obstruction to take place, there would have had to be some action which prevented the House or Members from attending to their duties, or which cast such serious reflections on a Member that he or she was not able to fulfill his or her responsibilities. I would submit that this is not the case in the present situation.

Despite not finding a prima facie case of privilege in that case, Mr. Speaker Fraser did raise serious concerns about the situation, stating that the ad was “objectionable and should never be repeated”.

With respect to the content and the cost of the advertisements, in the ruling given by Madam Speaker Sauvé on October 17, 1980, she stated on page 3781 of the House of Commons Debates:

The fact that certain members feel they are disadvantaged by not having the same funds to advertise as does the government, which could possibly be a point of debate, as a matter of impropriety or under any other heading, does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege unless such advertisements themselves constitute a contempt of the House, and to do so there would have to be some evidence that they represent a publication of false, perverted, partial or injurious reports of the proceedings of the House of Commons or misrepresentations of members.

As I indicated when this matter was raised, the issue of the money spent for these advertisements is clearly not a procedural matter.

In addition to these examples, another can be found in 1997, when a question of privilege was raised concerning advertisements made by Health Canada in daily newspapers regarding anti-tobacco legislation that had not yet been adopted by the House. In that case, Mr. Speaker Parent ruled, on March 13, 1997, in the Debates, on pages 8987 to 8988, that the advertisement did not give the impression that the House had already passed then Bill C-71 and, therefore, he could not find a prima facie question of privilege.

It is with these precedents in mind that I reviewed the advertisements in question. They contain phrases such as “the Government of Canada is proposing measures”, “These important measures, once in effect,” and “These measures are currently before Parliament”. In my view, the advertisements clearly acknowledge that these measures are not yet in place. I am therefore unable to find evidence of a misrepresentation of the proceedings of the House or of any presumption of the outcome of its deliberations.

While the hon. members for Scarborough—Agincourt and Trinity—Spadina may disagree with the title and content of these advertisements, this is more a matter of debate than of procedure or privilege. The Chair must therefore conclude, for the same reasons as my predecessors did, that the case before us today does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege or contempt of Parliament.

Once again, I thank the hon. members for Scarborough—Agincourt and Trinity—Spadina for having brought this matter to the attention of the House.

[Privilege, May 28th, 2008]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier concerning comments made by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board during question period on Monday, April 28, 2008.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Ottawa—Vanier for raising this matter and the hon. parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Beauséjour, and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their interventions.

Following question period on April 28 last, the member for Ottawa—Vanier rose on a question of privilege to take issue with comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board during oral questions in response to a question from the member for Beauséjour concerning election expenses. In that response, the parliamentary secretary said, as can be read in the Debates on page 5164:

Not to mention the fact that the Liberal Party transferred money directly to the Liberal candidate in Ottawa Centre to fund this Liberal in-and-out scam. I wonder if the member will stand up now and demand that the member for Ottawa—Vanier, who got involved, step aside until his name is cleared.

The member for Ottawa—Vanier expressed concern that these remarks suggested that he had been involved in improper election expenses—a suggestion to which he took strong exception—and he requested that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary withdraw the remarks and apologize.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary defended his response to the question by quoting from an affidavit, a copy of which he tabled the following day. I undertook to review the transcript of both Members’ statements, to look at the affidavit in question and to return to the House with a ruling on the matter.

As I have explained in previous rulings on similar matters, it is difficult for the Chair to find a prima facie case of privilege when dealing with these sorts of disagreements.

As stated on page 433 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue.

I have examined closely the documentation cited and the comments made during question period on that day. The affidavit is a lengthy description by a party official of alleged election advertising transactions and arrangements. Contrary to the impression left by the parliamentary secretary, the affidavit in no way supports the pointed insinuation of wrongdoing he made regarding the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. Similarly, the Chair cannot find anything in the affidavit that contradicts the very clear assertions made by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier on the matter at issue and in particular his statement found at page 5168 of the Debates for April 28, 2008.

As Speaker, I can fully appreciate that the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier believes the parliamentary secretary attacked his reputation on the basis of the remarks he made. However, it is difficult for the Chair to find a prima facie question of privilege. Members may clearly disagree on the propriety of certain events that are alleged to have taken place; they may even dispute their legality, but I do not believe it is the role of the Speaker to settle that argument. My only role is to determine whether the remarks were unparliamentary and whether they constitute such a grave attack as to impede the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier in the performance of his duties.

Given the differing views of both hon. members, and the actual words used by the parliamentary secretary, it is difficult for the Chair to regard the matter as anything other than a matter of debate. On the same ground that I ruled on similar questions for which I gave rulings on October 5, 2006, and again recently on April 10, 2008, I am, therefore, unable to find a basis for a prima facie breach of privilege.

That said, I must take this opportunity once again to remind honourable Members to be more judicious in their choice of words. As is stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 522: “Remarks directed specifically at another member questioning that member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order”.

The political climate in the House may be very heated at the moment but that is no reason to dispense with all civility or natural courtesy.

In the case at hand, although the Chair has not found a breach of privilege, the comments complained of have been addressed and I consider the matter closed.

I thank the House for its attention.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 10 minutes.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

[Points of Order, May 15th, 2008]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 14, 2008, by the hon. Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip concerning the admissibility of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which was presented to the House that day.

I would like to thank the hon. Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also wish to thank the hon. member for Mississauga South, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Western Economic Diversification for their interventions.

In his detailed remarks on this matter, the hon. Chief Government Whip argued that the recommendations contained in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which seeks to amend the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, went beyond the mandate of the committee and therefore should be ruled inadmissible. He pointed out that even the chair of the ethics committee had ruled that the matter was beyond the committee's mandate, but that this decision was appealed and overturned by committee members.

In his remarks, the hon. member for Mississauga South acknowledged that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was well aware that the matter was outside of its mandate when it adopted its seventh report to recommend amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code. However, the hon. member argued that the committee was justified in doing so because the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has the responsibility to propose such amendments, was currently unable to discharge its duties in this respect. Furthermore, he stressed the urgency of the subject matter of the report, contending that any delay in addressing those issues might unfairly restrict members' rights and privileges. In summary, he argued that there was no other possibility available to members of the House to deal with this fundamental matter in a timely fashion.

In his comments, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst agreed that this issue needed to be addressed as soon as possible. He also spoke of the well-recognized procedural principle that committees are masters of their own proceedings.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River acknowledged that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics exceeded its mandate in this matter, but suggested that it may have had sufficient procedural jurisdiction to render its report admissible.

As noted by the hon. Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip, Standing Order 108(3)(a)(viii), which deals with the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, states, “the review of and report on all matters relating to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons”. I may add that pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), the mandate to amend the Standing Orders, to which the Conflict of Interest Code is an appendix, also belongs to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

On the other hand, Standing Order 108(3)(h), which outlines the mandate of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, states at subparagraph (iii) that this mandate includes, “the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation together with the operational and expenditure plans relating to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner”, while subparagraph (v) indicates, “in cooperation with other committees, the review of and report on any federal legislation, regulation or Standing Order which impacts upon the access to information or privacy of Canadians or the ethical standards of public office holders”.

Hon. members will recall that the issue of the mandate of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was raised just a few weeks ago and was dealt with in a ruling that the Chair gave on March 14, 2008. I wish to quote again, as I did in that ruling, from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at p. 879:

Committees are entitled to report to the House only with respect to matters within their mandate. When reporting to the House, committees must indicate the authority under which the study was done (i.e., the Standing Order or the order of reference). If the committee’s report has exceeded or has been outside its order of reference, the Speaker has judged such a report, or the offending section, to be out of order.

As mentioned by the hon. Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip in his remarks, Mr. Speaker Parent offered clear guidance in the matter before us in his ruling given on page 5583 of the Debates of June 20, 1994:

While it is the tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

This is a reality that continues to this day, a reality that cannot be simply set aside because of existing circumstances in another committee, or by invoking the urgent need to address a subject, or by arguing the gravity of that subject.

As hon. members know, and as explained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 857, decisions of committee chairs may be appealed to the committee. However, as hon. members may recall, in my ruling of March 14 last, I raised serious concerns about committees overturning procedurally sound decisions by their chairs and the problems that may arise from such actions. I find it particularly troubling in this instance that the committee chose to proceed as it did with the clear knowledge that what it was doing was beyond the committee's mandate.

Some of the arguments presented in this case suggested that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was the only venue possible to deal with this important and urgent matter in an expeditious fashion. In my view, there are other mechanisms available to debate and resolve the matter at hand. Furthermore, as I mentioned on May 14 when this issue was raised, the fact that the procedure and House affairs committee is not functioning at the moment does not permit other committees to usurp its mandate.

I wish to remind hon. members that the Chair can apply the rules of the House only as they are written. The subject matter of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is clearly not within the mandate of that committee, as spelled out in Standing Order 108, and therefore, in my view, it is out of order.

For this reason, I rule that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be deemed withdrawn and that no subsequent proceedings may be taken in relation thereto. Accordingly, the two notices of motions for concurrence in this report currently on the notice paper standing in the names of the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and the hon. member for Halifax West will be withdrawn.

I thank the hon. Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip for having brought this matter to the attention of the Chair.

[Points of Order, May 14th, 2008]

We are getting a little beyond the point of order that was initially raised and that deals with the admissibility of this report.

What goes on in the procedure and House affairs committee, in my view, is quite irrelevant to the argument that is currently before the House as to the admissibility of this committee report.

The hon. member for Mississauga South in his argument admitted that this committee report appeared to be beyond the scope of the committee because the Standing Orders give the powers to another committee, but because that other committee was not functioning therefore this committee did the work.

In my view that does not sound like an argument that is going to work with me. Because of the fact that a committee is not functioning or is not doing its job or is not filing a report does not mean others then get jurisdiction just because the committee that has the jurisdiction did not do it.

If the committee had done a report that was unpopular with the ethics committee, that does not give it jurisdiction to then come in with another report on the same subject and say “we don't like this one, so here's an alternative”. That is not the way the rules in my view ought to be interpreted.

However, I am not going to give a final ruling on this matter today. I will review the remarks that were made by all the hon. members who contributed to the discussion.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, the Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip and the hon. member for Mississauga South for their comments.

I think they have all been very helpful in this case. I will review them all and then come back to the House in due course with a ruling as to the propriety of this committee report and its acceptability as such in the House, given the Standing Orders. I will say right off, it will be a tougher one, I think, to argue that this is in order than not, given the state of the Standing Orders on this point. I do not think we need to get into a lengthy discussion about what is going on in the other committee, because in my view it is irrelevant to the point before us.

Is the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst rising on another point?