Tuesday, March 12, 1996

CANADA VOLUME 133 S NUMBER 011 S 2nd SESSION S 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, March 12, 1996 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) The House of Commons Debates and the Proceedings of Committee evidence are accessible on the Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 557 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, March 12, 1996 The House met at 10 a.m. and consequently, the House refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination. _______________ Beauchesne’s sixth edition citation 28 refers to the Speaker’s Prayers ruling from June 19, 1959: —it is clear that many acts which might offend against the law or the moral _______________ sense of the community do not involve a Member’s capacity to serve the people who have chosen him or her as their representative nor are they [English] contrary to the usage nor derogatory to the dignity of the House of Commons. Members of the House of Commons, like all other citizens, have the right to PRIVILEGE be regarded as innocent until they are found guilty, and like other citizens they must be charged before they are obliged to stand trial in the courts. COMMUNIQUÉ FROM THE MEMBER FOR CHARLESBOURG Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and the dignity and the privileges of its Members. The Speaker: I have received notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt. The member for Charlesbourg has not denied sending the communiqué. This is a matter of fact. It is not something we have Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, Ref.): to prove. It is prima facie. The question to be answered is whether Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the the member is guilty of offending Parliament. In the opinion of the actions of a member of the House which I believe constitute a House is the hon. member for Charlesbourg guilty of sedition? contempt of Parliament. I cite Joseph Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, D (1010) page 210: In the sense that the House may discipline members for improper conduct, the This issue is being debated in the media and in the public. It is practice relating to taking up the conduct of members is a matter of privilege. not going away. Many of us have received letters, faxes and phone Beauchesne’s sixth edition citation 50 states: calls concerning this matter. Canadians from coast to coast to coast In any case where the propriety of a Member’s actions is brought into have been contacting me as the Reform Party’s defence critic question, a specific charge must be made. objecting to the action taken by the separatist party in the House. Page 206 of Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada states: Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie recently told Diane The conduct of a member may only be discussed in the House of Commons Francis, the editor of the Financial Post: ‘‘Only in Canada could by way of a substantive or a distinct motion, i.e. a self-contained proposal someone get away with something like that. In some countries submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a way as to be people would be in jail. In Canada the attitude is ignore it, it will go capable of expressing a decision to the House. away, there are more important issues’’. Mr. Speaker, I have a specific charge and a substantive motion. I will submit it to you to determine whether it should be given I repeat that in June of 1959 the then Speaker of the House privilege: pointed out that Parliament is a court with respect to its own Whereas the member for Charlesbourg, acting as the defence critic for the privileges and dignity. Bloc Quebecois and supported by the then Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, released a communiqué on the letterhead of the office of the leader Beauchesne’s sixth edition citation 46 states clearly: of the official opposition on October 26, 1995 before the referendum in Quebec inviting all francophone members of the Canadian Armed Forces to join the The House has, on occasion, examined the activities of Members to establish Quebec military in the event of a ‘‘yes’’ vote supporting separation from if they were fit to hold their seats. Canada; That in the opinion of this House, this action by the hon. member for Charlesbourg and the then leader of the official opposition should be viewed as We have the right and the duty to examine these activities of seditious and offensive to this House and constitutes a contempt of Parliament; members. I am not recommending that we do this on a regular 558 COMMONS DEBATES March 12, 1996 Privilege basis. However, a case such as the present one warrants our The Speaker: My colleagues, on your behalf I do take this as a examination. In the present case we have a member of Parliament very serious situation. It is probably one of the more serious encouraging members of the Canadian Armed Forces to choose situations that I as your Speaker have been confronted with since I sides on the secession debate. This should be examined by the was chosen as your Speaker. House. We do have on the floor a specific charge of one member to Page 188 of Maingot’s states: another member. Before I declare whether or not this is a prima facie case, I would make a passing comment. A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges This communiqué is dated October 26, 1995. I mention that of the House have been breached or a contempt has occurred and report to the House. because although contempt can stand by itself, it comes under the aegis of privilege. In privilege members are admonished and The evidence here is black and white. It is in the form of a encouraged to bring up such a matter at the earliest possible communiqué the hon. member sent to the military. moment. I mention that only to put this matter into perspective. With respect to whether this constitutes a contempt of Parlia- I will now recognize the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois. ment, Erskine May’s 21st edition at page 115 states that an offence of contempt: [Translation] —may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. to amount to contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its Speaker, first of all I would like to point out that there was no nature discretionary. unanimous consent for tabling the document referred to my colleague, and it is not consented to. Second, the crux of the Maingot’s, page 191: problem is that the member for Charlesbourg did indeed contact members of the Armed Forces in this letter in order to indicate to While privilege may be codified, contempt may not—there is no closed list of them that—I have the text here—if the yes side won in the October classes of offences punishable as contempts of Parliament. 30 referendum, the rights, salary levels and ranks of Quebec members of the Canadian Armed Forces would be recognized by On October 29, 1980 a Speaker of the House said: the Government of Quebec which would have its own armed The dimension of contempt of Parliament is such that the House will not be forces, like any other country, although obviously of limited size. constrained in finding a breach of privilege of its Members or of the House. This is precisely the reason that, while our privileges are defined, contempt of the D House has no limits. (1020) Mr. Speaker, if contempt has no limits, if there need not be a The reason this came up is that, during the referendum cam- precedent for the offence, if contempt cannot be codified and if the paign, the federalists referred to precisely that matter, saying House shall not be constrained in finding a contempt of Parliament, ‘‘People will be losing their jobs, losing their jobs because they are how can you do anything else but allow the members of the House Quebecers and Quebec will become a sovereign country. And the opportunity to decide if the actions of the hon. member for either there will be no armed forces in a sovereign Quebec or Charlesbourg are offensive and constitute a contempt? How can Canada will refuse to keep citizens of Quebec on as members of its you decide this matter offends us or not? The evidence is more than armed forces’’. If one camp is entitled to discuss such matters, sufficiently strong. The evidence is conclusive. The member sent there are no grounds here for accusing the other of sedition, of the communiqué. We must therefore go to the next step. We must rallying people against Canada or the Canadian Armed Forces. determine by due process in our opinion the member’s innocence This was merely a response to arguments— or guilt. Mr. Crawford: Bull! D (1015) An hon. member: Oh, the Liberals. I would like to table the evidence in this case, which is the communiqué dated October 26, 1995 from the office of the official Mr.

Load more