CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 139 Ï NUMBER 005 Ï 3rd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, February 6, 2004 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 243 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, February 6, 2004 The House met at 10 a.m. government House leader in that the Prime Minister should be able to claim this privilege. Prayers In his submission, the former government House leader on May 12, 2003 argued that in the Ainsworth decision, the B.C. court Ï (1000) confirmed the existence of parliamentary privilege of members against participating in legal proceedings when Parliament was in [English] session. The court recognized that this applied throughout the The Speaker: The Chair has received notice of a question of parliamentary session including adjournments and other periods privilege from the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. I will now when the houses were not sitting. However, the court ruled that there hear the hon. member on the question of privilege. was no legal support for extending this privilege for 40 days before Ï (1005) or after a parliamentary session. PRIVILEGE The then government House leader felt the court's ruling raised an PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE important issue. This is the question of whether it is the role of Parliament or the role of the courts to define what parliamentary Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, privilege is. I rise today on a question of privilege regarding a matter that was raised in a previous session. On May 12 and May 16, 2003 the On May 26, 2003 the Speaker ruled the matter was a prima facie former government House leader raised the issue of parliamentary question of privilege. He also agreed with some members that there privilege exempting members from being called as witnesses in any was a need for an even-handed application of privilege with respect court when the House is in session, specifically the decision of the to the rights of other Canadians. He pointed to a suggestion that it British Columbia Court of Appeal on April 23, 2003 in what is might be appropriate for the House to revisit its current interpretation known as the Ainsworth case. of the immunity that its privileges provide. He concluded by recognizing the special requirements of the House which make The issue raised in that case was whether the Prime Minister could privilege necessary, that there is need to ensure that other citizens are claim parliamentary privilege to provide legal protection against any not adversely affected by those privileges. action against him from the court for failing to attend an examination for discovery. He also raised the matter of a decision of the Ontario In particular, members had expressed concern during the debate Superior Court with respect to another member involving Telezone on the question of privilege that the blind application of the rights of Inc. members, such as the right not to be compelled to appear before a The latter was dealt with on January 6, 2004 when the Ontario court as a witness, might interfere unduly with the rights of others. Court of Appeal made a decision with respect to Telezone Inc. I believe that its decision satisfies the former government House The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure leader, although a number of questions remain. The Ontario Court of and House Affairs. The committee's initial research revealed that Appeal ruled that the parliamentary privilege of a member of there were two types of situations that can arise: one where a Parliament not to attend as a witness in a civil action applies member is a party to a civil action, the case involving the Prime throughout a session of Parliament and extends 40 days after the Minister; and one where the member is merely being asked to attend prorogation or dissolution of Parliament and 40 days before the as a witness, the case involving the former member for Ottawa commencement of a new session. South. The case of the Prime Minister remains unresolved because the The research claimed that while the parliamentary privilege to two cases are different. In the case of Attorney General of Canada, et avoid appearing in court as a witness does not apply to the Prime al. v. Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. (B.C.) (29842), the Supreme Court Minister because he is named as a defendant in a civil action, the dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Prime Minister privilege can be claimed by Mr. Manley because he was not named still does not have the right to claim this privilege. The issue of as a party in the case and was simply asked to appear as a witness in whether or not he can claim this privilege remains unresolved. It is the court. The recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal not clear whether or not the House agrees with the former would confirm that finding. 244 COMMONS DEBATES February 6, 2004 Points of Order The research also left many questions to be answered, such as POINTS OF ORDER whether the distinction between being a party to a civil action and being a witness is reasonable and should be reviewed. Should one STRIKING OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE privilege be extended or the other limited? How should these privileges relate to criminal matters? What is the privilege procedure Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point for a member to claim these privileges? Given the privileges belong of order. I would like to ask you to seek unanimous consent for the to the House of Commons, is the 40 day rule an appropriate length of following motion: time for the immunity of being a witness and from arrest, especially That notwithstanding Standing Order 105, a special committee of the House be given that the parliamentary sessions in the Canadian Parliament are appointed to prepare and bring in a bill to protect our children from further sexual typically quite lengthy? Should the fact that there is a fixed exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences parliamentary calendar for the House make a difference? for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children, and that the membership of the committee be: Peter Adams, member for Peterborough, Ontario; hon. Reg Alcock, member for Winnipeg South, Manitoba; Carole-Marie The 40 day rule arose at a time when parliamentary sessions were Allard, member for Laval East, Quebec; hon. David Anderson, member for Victoria, short. The members could not really leave the capital before, during British Columbia; Mark Assad, member for Gatineau, Quebec; Sarkis Assadourian, or after a session. Should the ease of modern transportation be member for Brampton Centre, Ontario; hon. Jean Augustine, member for Etobicoke relevant? Should the 40 day rule be retained or shortened? —Lakeshore, Ontario; hon. Larry Bagnell, member for Yukon, Yukon; hon. Eleni Bakopanos, member for Ahuntsic, Quebec; hon. Sue Barnes, member for London Ï (1010) West, Ontario; Gilbert Barrette, member for Témiscamingue, Quebec; Colleen Beaumier, member for Brampton West—Mississauga, Ontario; Réginald Bélair, member for Timmins—James Bay, Ontario; hon. Mauril Bélanger, Ottawa—Vanier, Mr. Speaker, as a result of prorogation, the terms of reference to Ontario; Eugene Bellemare, member for Ottawa—Orléans, Ontario; hon. Carolyn the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has lapsed. Bennett, member for St. Paul's, Ontario; Robert Bertrand, member for Pontiac— Since a committee cannot on its own consider a matter of privilege Gatineau—Labelle, Quebec; hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua, member for Vaughan—King without a reference from the House, I ask that you rule this to be a —Aurora, Ontario; Gérard Binet, member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Quebec; hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew, member for Western Arctic, Northwest Territories; Raymond prima facie question of privilege to allow me to move the motion Bonin, member for Nickel Belt, Ontario, hon. Paul Bonwick, member for Simcoe— referring this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Grey, Ontario; hon. Don Boudria, member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, House Affairs. Ontario; hon. Claudette Bradshaw, member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, New Brunswick; hon. Scott Brison, member for Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia; Bonnie The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for raising this matter. As Brown, member for Oakville, Ontario; John Bryden, member for Ancaster—Dundas I indicated in the previous session, this was a bona fide question of —Flamborough—Aldershot, Ontario; Sarmite Bulte, member for Parkdale—High privilege. Accordingly, in my view, the question remains a question Park, Ontario— of privilege. The committee did not completely report on the matter Ï (1015) which it is entitled to do. Accordingly I give the hon. member leave to move his motion. The Speaker: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member for Elk Island is seeking consent of the House to move a motion to *** strike a committee and he appears to have gone far beyond anything like normal membership of committee already, in terms of numbers. REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON He appears to be putting the whole House on the committee. He PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS could move that we go to committee of the whole, but he is not Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, doing that. I move: If there is more substance to his motion rather than names, I would That the matter of the question of privilege raised on May 12 and May 16, 2003 like to hear it.