CANADA VOLUME 133 S NUMBER 005 S 2nd SESSION S 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, March 4, 1996 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) CORRIGENDUM In the column at left on page 188 of Hansard, Friday March 1, 1996, under ``Government Business'', the mention should read as follows: MOTION NO. 1ĊNOTICE OF MOTION FOR CLOSURE Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, concerning the debate on government Motion No. 1, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, I will move that debate be not further adjourned. 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 211 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, March 4, 1996 The House met at 11 a.m. officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act _______________ which might be considered to amount to a contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature discretionary. Nevertheless, certain broad principles may be deduced from a review of the kinds of misconduct which in the past either Prayers House has punished as a contempt. _______________ On October 29, 1980 a Speaker of this House had this to say: [English] The dimension of contempt of Parliament is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a breach of privileges of members, or of the House. This PRIVILEGE is precisely the reason that, while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our SFT COMMUNICATIONS BRIEFING BOOK proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred. The Speaker: Before we begin with orders of the day, I have a point of privilege from the member for Beaver River. The House shall not be constrained in dealing with this matter. It is a very serious matter and should be taken up by the Standing Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I Committee of Procedure and House Affairs for further study. appreciate the time. I rise on a question of contempt of Parliament. The issue is one It is very important at this time to understand the sequence of the that I originally raised as a question of personal privilege on events in this matter. Since I went through those last week I do not February 28 on the floor of the House. After further consideration know if we need all the gory details again. However, suffice it to of all the information, I now raise this matter as a concern to all say that when I requested a printing order from the printing people members of Parliament in the context of a contempt of Parliament. they were willing to fulfil my request and had already completed 48 out of the 60 copies I had requested when not only one but two I cite Joseph Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, phone calls were made from the department to the Prime Minister’s page 192: office to talk about the number of copies that would be available. It While privilege may be codified, contempt may not, because new forms of then slipped out erroneously from the printing department that it obstruction are constantly being devised and that Parliament must be able to had run off copies and that it was for an opposition member. invoke its penal jurisdiction to protect itself against these new forms; there is no closed list of classes of offences punishable as contempts of Parliament. At that point,Mr. Simpson in the Prime Minister’s office said: I intend to prove in my arguments that Mr. Simpson of the Prime ‘‘No, do not fulfil her request’’. It certainly limits me or any other Minister’s office coerced, intimated and incited staff of the House member of the House of Commons when somebody from the Prime of Commons into not fulfilling their mandate to answer to a request Minister’s office can know what is going on and what members are for printing made by me on February 28 and that this constitutes a asking to be printed, and further that somebody there would have contempt of the House. Consequently I will be asking, Mr. Speaker, the gall to say do not print that. that if you rule this a prima facie case of privilege, this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House I give notice and read the following motion which I am prepared Affairs for examination. to put forward. I move: It is difficult to determine what any House of Parliament will That Mr. Simpson of the Prime Minister’s office coerced, intimated and consider as an offence and a contempt of Parliament. Erskine May incited staff of the House of Commons into not fulfilling their mandate to answer to a request for printing made on February 28, 1996 by the member for describes contempt as: Beaver River, and that this constitutes a contempt of this House, and Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in consequently that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or Procedure and House Affairs for examination. 212 COMMONS DEBATES March 4, 1996 Privilege The Speaker: The hon. member will recall that I did rule on appropriately dealt with in that forum. I understand we are only a what I feel is the first part of the question which she put before few days away from a meeting of that group. the House in review. The second part constitutes something quite different from what we dealt in the first, which was an administra- Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, tive matter. in reference to the chief government whip’s statement I would have to disagree that it is appropriate for this matter to be dealt with in D (1105 ) that subcommittee. The issue here is not printing. The issue here is interference, bold faced interference by the Prime Minister’s office. Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. This is a serious enough matter that we as members of the House Speaker, you have already ruled on this issue. I do not think the want to redress it in the most appropriate forum, which is certainly hon. member has all the facts. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, before you not that subcommittee. proceed we should find out exactly to whom the document belongs. Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was In any caucus there are documents that belong to it. All caucuses in the House when the issue was first raised by the hon. member, at have documents such as research papers which belong to the which time the Speaker also ruled. caucus and we ask the House printer to print them for caucus members, whether from the government, the official opposition or My understanding is that when a matter comes forward like this the Reform Party. in the same form after the Speaker has ruled, it is effectively a challenge to the Chair. Mr. Speaker, before you proceed you should inquire as to the exact ownership of the document. I think the hon. member is D (1110) coming back on a ruling you have already made. I do not see any new facts. They are the same facts, the same document, the same I would like to have clarification of whether it is the intention of person she referred to last week. Before you proceed, you should the member to challenge the Chair’s ruling with regard to the inquire more about the facts. matters that have been addressed in the House. That is an extremely important point for all members. The integrity of the Chair is very Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. important to the House. Speaker, I heard briefly some of the remarks from outside the Chamber, remarks with regard to the alleged question of privilege Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not my intention to today. challenge the Chair ever. You and I had a meeting along with the clerk of the House of Commons. New facts came out when you As the deputy House leader has just indicated, the Chair has talked to me very specifically about the printing department and all already ruled on the issue. To raise the issue again with a further those departments being under your supervision. belief that the same point is valid even though it has been rejected by the Chair is not usually recognized by the Chair as being valid in We are not talking about printing here. We are talking about itself. interference by the Prime Minister’s office which, Mr. Speaker told me clearly, was not under his jurisdiction. I am talking about a contempt of Parliament by the Prime Minister’s office, not the The Board of Internal Economy has its own entity of the board printing department. and a subcommittee on printing. If my agenda is correct, we have a meeting of the subcommittee on printing only a few days from The Speaker: We understand that the point of privilege on now.