CANADA VOLUME 136 S NUMBER 062 S 2nd SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, March 3, 2000 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent 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 4327 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, March 3, 2000 The House met at 10 a.m. members of the government party—but not all—to introduce an unlimited number of amendments, but would place outrageous limitations on the right of opposition members and of members of _______________ the government party not in cabinet to do likewise. This motion strikes me as out of order because it makes a Prayers distinction between the rights of the constituents of a minister and those of opposition members, by giving more rights to one group than to the other. This motion is an illustration of how democracy is _______________ eroding in the hands of the Liberals, who want to gag not only the people of Quebec, but also the House of Commons, and all parliamentarians sitting in this House. D (1000) This is a government of secrecy, as we have seen with the HRDC [Translation] scandal, with the APEC summit, and with the multitude of gag orders this government has made use of since it came in. This motion will again give more prerogatives to the government, which PRIVILEGE is already assured of a dominant position as far as all the business of this House is concerned. MOTION NO. 8 This motion is out of order because it would impose unreason- able and unprecedented limits on any and all criticism, when that is Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. precisely the role of an opposition in a British style parliamentary Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the govern- system. It is the role of the opposition to question the government ment House leader’s tabling on the March 1 notice paper of a party, which has an obligation to be answerable to parliament for motion that threatens the rights and privileges of the House. its actions. I will explain. Motion No. 8 introduced by the government This motion would constitute an attack on the right of parlia- House leader and published in the notice paper yesterday could, if mentarians and members of parliament to speak, a right that goes deemed in order, threaten the rights and privileges of parlia- back to the very origins of democracy. This motion is out of order mentarians, of the House and, worse still, of the Chair. If this because it would limit the freedom of the Chair to decide undis- motion were deemed in order, it would show contempt for parlia- turbed and fully independently the status of the amendments we in mentary democracy. It would unilaterally—and I emphasize the the opposition might submit to the House. word unilaterally—change the rules of the parliamentary game. This motion is out of order because it would break with the age old tradition preventing the Chair from becoming the executor of Usually, when the standing orders are amended—and this is the the wishes of the executive. It is out of order, Mr. Speaker, because practice, or has been since I have been here—the parties consult it would deprive you of your role, which is to deal in total each other and hold discussions, which has not been the case this impartiality with all parliamentarians, from the highest of minis- time around. This motion would muzzle the opposition by limiting ters to the lowest of MPs. its right to introduce amendments to the government’s bill. It would allow only one amendment per member, but this limit would D (1005) not apply to ministers. This motion is out of order because it would strike at the very This would be unfair because the motion would thus create heart of an institution whose role it is to maintain and preserve a intolerable discrimination among parliamentarians. It would allow space and a forum for public debate. 4328 COMMONS DEBATES March 3, 2000 Privilege The government has raised the issue of the cost of debate here in D (1010) this House. That is serious. Has the government reached the point where it raises the question of money when the opposition wants to Mr. Speaker, I urge you to take into consideration the fact that debate an issue? How to explain the government’s criticism of the the question of privilege raised by the hon. Bloc Quebecois leader Bloc Quebecois’ opposition to committees travelling outside Otta- does not have so much to do with the motion as with the action wa and the country, as in the case of the Standing Committee on taken. Foreign Affairs, which would like to visit the Caucasus? Perhaps there would be no cost involved? How can they spend money in one instance and in another say it is a terrible thing? As I said, this measure will have the effect of creating a threat to all parliamentarians in this House, particularly to opposition parties but also to government backbenchers, who should under- Democracy has a cost. It is far preferable to places where there is stand that this is an unacceptable and intolerable violation of the no democracy. privileges of this House and of every parliamentarian. When I hear the argument that the government side is going to As the protector of the rights and privileges of independent win the vote in any case, I say we know the morning after an members, you must take into consideration the fact that Motion election that one party has a majority. Is the government telling us No. 8 is also a potential threat to their right to table amendments at that there should be no opposition parties because it is a matter of report stage. fact that the party with the majority will win the vote? That is not valid. I would urge you to allow the debate on this question of privilege to continue. Again, the question of privilege is not so much on the More importantly, Mr. Speaker, your role is at stake. You must motion itself as on the intolerable action taken by the Leader of the have the trust of all parliamentarians and all parties. That presup- Government in the House, who put this motion on the order paper, poses that the Chair is absolutely neutral and perfectly impartial. where it will remain indefinitely, thus posing a threat to our rights. This motion would make you an instrument of the government. You cannot assume such status without losing the trust of this House. Moreover, yesterday, in response to the Thursday question about the future business of the House, he announced that this issue Accordingly, I ask you to recognize that the action by the would be debated today. For one reason or another, it is not being government House leader infringes the rights and privileges not debated today. When will it be? When will our rights and privileges only of parliamentarians but of the House and, more seriously, of as parliamentarians be put into question? I am asking you to the Chair, without which there would be no democratic debates consider this issue. here in the House of Commons. The Speaker: In connection with the motion, if it is not the The Speaker: So far, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has motion we are going to discuss, but rather the action taken in addressed Motion No. 8, which, in my opinion, has yet to be relation to a question, then perhaps I will hear a few other introduced. When the motion is introduced in the House, if it is, contributions. I notice that the Leader of the Official Opposition is perhaps that would be the time to raise the issue rather than on his feet; I will recognize him. debating a hypothetical issue right now. [English] Are we going to debate all the motions on the Order Paper before they are called by the government? I wonder. If the question of Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the privilege of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois relates to Motion No. privilege motion brought forward by the leader of the Bloc. For 8, the motion is not yet before the House. clarification Mr. Speaker, are you just taking representations on what the whip presented? I am not sure what you are asking for Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. here, Mr. Speaker. Speaker, I want to understand what you just said. The Bloc Quebecois leader clearly specified that his question of privilege did The Speaker: The day before yesterday I ruled that we would not have so much to do with the motion per se, as with the action have points of order and points of privilege, whatever we wanted, taken by the government House leader, and I also want speak to this when Motion No. 8 was brought to the floor. A very subtle change issue. is being brought up here that is not so much on Motion No. 8 but now the whip is introducing the question of a gesture that is being As you indicated, Motion No. 8 is on the order paper, but the made which may or may not carry with it some kind of threat. action in itself is highly reprehensible, because it ensures that, by remaining on the order paper, this motion will be a constant threat I never heard this point before so I am interested in hearing a bit to all opposition parties for the rest of the session.