PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 19, 1998

• 1111

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, perhaps we could begin.

The order of business today is the order of reference from the House of Commons of March 10, 1998. It states that certain statements attributed to members of the House of Commons appearing on page 7 of the March 8, 1998, Ottawa Sun, which may bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant, the Speaker, be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

It's my understanding as chair that the purpose of this meeting is to consider that order of reference in the context of a briefing on what is privilege, on what is a breach of privilege with respect to the House of Commons in connection with this order of reference. So the purpose of this meeting is to inform ourselves of those matters.

In this Parliament we have not considered privilege in this committee, so it's something we should be brought up to speed on. It seems to me that the most useful approach would be to bring in a witness who is an expert on these matters who would make a short presentation to us. Then we could question him on the technical matters dealing with the nature of privilege.

The witness we have with us is Joseph Maingot, Q.C., a former law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons and author of the book, now in its second edition, entitled Parliamentary Privilege in Canada.

First of all, thank you, Mr. Maingot, for being here. We greatly appreciate it. In a moment I'd like to ask you to make a short statement.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I know that you have your procedure for this study, but should we not agree beforehand on the meaning of our order of reference? What point should be followed? What is our mandate? Should we not agree on that before we start hearing from witnesses?

As I was saying earlier to the clerk, I'm wondering why Mr. Maingot is testifying now, even before we decide on the scope of our mandate. You have read the order of reference, but does everyone understand it in the same way? What is the objective of all this? We should start by determining that, and then consider whether Mr. Maingot is the first witness we should be hearing from. I don't know who made this decision. I was not consulted on this, and I don't think my whip was either.

I had some experience with the Jacob affair in 1995, and I noticed that a number of other committee members were on the committee at the time of the Jacob affair as well. Before beginning, we agreed on the order of reference. We agreed on what we were trying to achieve. We agreed on certain terms of reference. We agreed on the list of witnesses. Subsequently, we considered whether we needed an expert for ten days. We decided we did, and Mr. Maingot was very useful to us in that capacity.

• 1115

This morning, there is nothing like that. We are hearing from Mr. Maingot immediately. He is going to testify. If he is a witness, if he is not an expert on behalf of the House, will he be able to help us draft our report? I am not sure of that. In any case, it would certainly be one of the first times that a witness would help us draft a final report, because we will be reporting to the House.

I think we are acting a little too hastily. Perhaps we should try to help the members who may not have been involved at the time of the Jacob matter. We talked about that for weeks. What is a privilege? What is contempt? What constitutes contempt of the House, and what does not? At this stage, Mr. Chairman, it is too early to make these decisions. We must start by agreeing on the order of reference.

We must have a clear idea of what our mandate is. I think that even the members of the Reform Party had some very important arguments to put forward in the Jacob case. I imagine they would like us to proceed today using the same rules we followed in 1995- 1996. We do have a precedent.

I would like to repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I think we are getting underway too quickly today, that we are not getting off on the right foot, and that this will plague us throughout the rest of the hearings. I think we must take as much time as we need. If we have to lose a meeting, we will do so. In fact, we will not lose it, because we will clarify certain points. I think it would be to our advantage in the long run if we were to clarify things properly at the outset.

At the moment, I think we are proceeding too quickly by hearing from Mr. Maingot. I don't know what the other members think, but...

[English]

The Chairman: I would be glad to respond to that before other members do. As I tried to explain, Mr. Bellehumeur, my thought was that there are many members here who were not involved in the Jacob affair. I know there is information available about that particular case. I thought it was very useful at this time that we inform ourselves about the nature of the matter before us in a general way.

I see our witness being here today to do that, to give us some guidance on the general nature of privilege, on the nature of contempt, with particular reference to the order of reference we've received. My thought was we had better get as much information as we can about privilege and contempt before we design the strategy.

Would any other member like to comment? Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with your statement and especially with the wording of the motion that came from the House. It is a very open-ended statement really. It says there are certain statements and it may bring into question the integrity of the House and its servant, the speaker.

Our guest here today can tell us what the integrity of the House of Commons actually means, what it means to question that, if there is such a thing, and so on. There's a usefulness in just getting the broad parameters of what it is we could be dealing with and then we can get more specific down the road if necessary.

As far as what this statement even means we could do is a good discussion for today, and I think our guest will give us that. That's why I'm interested to hear him and I would like to make a motion that we hear the witness.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): To begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I have no reason to challenge...

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Excuse me. I move that we hear the witness.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You gave me the floor, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: There was a motion, Stéphane, I'm sorry. I missed it.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I move that we hear the witness now. There is no term of reference other than this, and I'd like to hear what the witness has to say about this.

The Chairman: Are there any comments on the motion? Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, since the motion is about the substance of my colleague's remarks, I will make the comments I had planned to make in any case.

I have no reason to question your good faith in deciding unilaterally, for some totally legitimate and valid reasons, to ask Mr. Maingot to appear to inform committee members about the meaning of the concepts of privilege and contempt.

However, one of the arguments you use to justify your decision is that a number of members here were not directly involved in the Jacob affair. You can correct me if I am wrong, or my colleagues can correct me, but I think that in the Jacob affair, before there was such a meeting as the one that is now taking place, there had fist been a number of those meetings to which my colleague referred, meetings that made it possible to determine the parameters within which we intended to operate before any witness was called.

• 1120

I'd like to join my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm in saying that I would like to know the parliamentary procedure on this point, but can we legitimately, without losing face, ask someone who appeared before this committee as a witness to serve as an advisor to the committee? Perhaps we should, in fact, have reached agreement on the parameters that would eventually have led us to call on Mr. Maingot as an expert before we called him as a witness.

My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm raised a question that I would immediately like to deal with. Of course we were informed that this meeting would take place, but we were never consulted either formally or informally on the holding of a meeting of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to determine the work of this committee with regard to the order of reference currently before you.

To some extent, Mr. Chairman, I must subscribe to my colleague's general argument and say, without in any way impugning the good will and sincerity of your arguments, that this morning's meeting may, in fact, be somewhat premature.

[English]

The Chairman: We have a motion before us.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The purpose of today's meeting is to set the frame of reference for our discussion and our hearings.

Mr. Maingot, I thank you for coming here and I'd be grateful if you would proceed with a short presentation.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would merely like to ask a question related to the intervention that I made a few seconds ago. I would like to have clarification on the possibility of this committee's engaging the services of an expert not only during the deliberations but also for the drafting of the report, if this expert has already been called by the committee to appear as a witness.

[English]

The Chairman: Perhaps this is something we could discuss later, but we aren't confined to a single expert witness. That's the only thing I would say. So we don't depend on one person for any future proceedings that we have.

Mr. Maingot, I'd be grateful if you would proceed with your presentation.

Mr. J.P. Joseph Maingot, Q.C. (Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons; Author of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm honoured to be here before this House of Commons committee. I'm going to make a very brief statement, and if you wish, I'm certainly open to questions.

I would like to point out something you perhaps already know. The houses of Parliament and each of the ten provincial houses and the two territories and their members have certain immunities and parliamentary privileges that enable them to do their constitutional duty.

Parliamentary privilege is a law; it's part of the general public law of Canada that we're talking about. Parliamentary privilege is the necessary immunity that the law provides for members of Parliament and for members of the legislatures of the provinces and the territories to do their work. It's also a necessary immunity that the law provides for anyone taking part in the proceedings, such as myself as a witness. In addition, it is the right, power, and authority of each house of Parliament to perform their constitutional functions. Finally, it's the authority and the power of each house to protect its integrity and enforce its immunity.

The members of these bodies and the bodies themselves need this protection to perform their functions to defend their authority, to vindicate their authority and their integrity and dignity. They enjoy these rights because the legislature couldn't perform their function without the members taking part. They need their unimpeded use. That's why members aren't protected from commenting. One of their personal privileges is to be able to come to assist the Parliament, and they can't be impeded. If someone is impeded, then it's a breach of privilege.

Privileges for members are fairly well defined. There aren't that many. The main one you all know about, of course, is the freedom of speech, la liberté de parole durant le débat.

• 1125

The order of reference you have here, a copy of which I've described, speaks of certain statements attributed to members of the House of Commons, “...which may bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant the Speaker...”.

The acts in question don't implicate a particular privilege of a member, but rather concern a matter about the dignity and the integrity of the House and the speaker—that is, the remarks made by these members constitute, in effect, a contempt of Parliament.

Contempt is a word we usually hear when we think in terms of a court of law. Contempt may be used to constitute any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrepect or disregard. A court requires that power to uphold its authority and to protect its integrity. Similarly, the House needs to uphold its authority and protect its integrity. It has the power to hold people in contempt for disregarding what is has ordered and for showing disrespect in a variety of ways.

So contempt may be aptly described as an offence against the authority of the House, the authority to make legitimate orders and its authority to protect itself from this disrespectful matter of disregarding its orders.

Therefore, it may be seen what while you can define what is a breach of privilege, because you know what these are, since they are known, you can't really define what acts or omissions constitute contempt—rather, contempt is what the House says is contempt.

The committee may deal with this matter as it sees fit, subject to traditions and procedures and precedents.

The normal procedure in a case such as this, when it has to do with statements attributed by persons outside, is to give these persons an opportunity to be heard. The committee would then determine the gravity of remarks attributed to the members in question and any explanations advanced by them.

At that point, you'll be involved in open discussions. Sometimes the discussion moves in camera when you come to your decision. Then the report will depend on what further action you recommend, if any action at all is recommended.

That's generally it in a nutshell.

[Translation]

If you wish to ask me questions, I would be pleased to reply.

[English]

The Chairman: Questions, colleagues?

I think you all have the reference. Does everyone have a copy of the article referred to in the reference?

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Maingot.

Let me pursue the definition of conduct. First, is the speaker's ruling appealable? If so, how?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: I don't know whether that's relevant to this, but the speaker's rulings have been.... The appeal was discontinued a number of years ago, I think, in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Let me attempt to show why it may be relevant, then, Mr. Chair.

You indicated that contempt is what the House says it is. If the ruling is challenged, the speaker is challenged to make a ruling. If the speaker is part of that very issue before the chair, and then the chair makes that ruling, which is not appealable by any procedure, how can we reconcile that to a potential conflict of interest within that scenario?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: First of all, I realize the article said certain things—a demand for Parent's removal as speaker, and grave consequences if he doesn't rule in favour of the flag—but on two occasions the article says the speaker had warrant.

In my view, what your order of reference asks you to do is to look at these remarks, because up to now, the procedure followed was that the matter was raised in the House. The speaker's job was to find whether there was a prima facie case of privilege. If he has found there was, you accepted that ruling and sent it to the committee.

Now your job is to look at those remarks that were said and determine, well, now, in my sphere of thinking, and the sphere of thinking of members of Parliament, does that really constitute contempt? Does that show a disregard? Does that show disrespect for the House, for the speaker and his functions? Is it intimidation, or was it a joke? Or was it...?

• 1130

This is what you have to do. That's your function. And once you do that, you report back to the House. You hear the witnesses and the persons who have made these statements—as I said, that's the normal procedure—whether they have an explanation or no explanation, whether they're sorry or not sorry, and then you go on from there.

Then you make your decision. What should we do? How serious is this? Should we proceed further? Do we want to take up the time of the House? You are going to consider all these matters before you make your final decision and set it out in your report.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Whatever the decision of the committee—and I do not like to prejudge the decision—is the speaker bound to adopt its decision? Is the House bound? Does the speaker have any alternative to overrule the decision and substitute his own interpretation of contempt if that turns out to be the issue?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: No. The report will go to the House and the House may or may not adopt it. If it's put to a vote, then it's voted on. The speaker only votes if there's an equality of votes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Finally, if the member pursues this issue and says I would like to argue a case of contempt, Mr. Speaker, and I would like you to make the ruling yourself—first, can it be done by the member, and second, is the speaker bound to make his ruling one way or the other? And if so, how do you relate that to the predicament I alluded to earlier, that he is part of the issue itself, as indicated in the media?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: If a member wanted to raise a matter of contempt, he would have to have some facts on which to base it; otherwise the speaker will say there's a void there. The only other way in which a member can talk about contempt is to bring a notice of motion to want to talk about the matter.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl, Michel Bellehumeur, and then Bill Blaikie.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you again for coming, Mr. Maingot. I appreciate your input. I know that Peter Goldring would love to be here to listen to the discussions. He's elsewhere, but I am sure this will be of interest to him as these proceedings continue.

I have a couple of comments and then some questions on the advisability of using public comments and attempting to call them breaches of privilege. I have a couple of quotes. One is from the second edition of your Parliamentary Privilege in Canada. I think it's on page 235. It says:

...all interferences with Members' privileges of freedom of speech, such as editorials and other public comment, are not breaches of privilege even though they influence the conduct of Members in their parliamentary work. Accordingly, not every action by an outside body that may influence the conduct of a Member of Parliament as such could now be regarded as a breach of privilege, even if it were calculated and intended to bring pressure on the Member to take or to refrain from taking a particular course. But any attempt by improper means to influence or obstruct a Member in his parliamentary work may constitute contempt.

I'm just thinking about the headlines this morning: there is a huge attempt by the Reform Party to influence the Prime Minister to not appoint people in a certain manner to the Senate. We're bringing every possible means to bear on that. We're trying to influence the top dog in the land to make a decision, and we're using means both inside and outside the House. There are media reports. There's extensive pressure by a lot of people—not just by us—to influence the government ministers or Prime Minister to react in a certain way.

Given your comments in here that members' privileges of free speech are not breaches of privilege, even if they try to influence members in their parliamentary work, is there a special category for speakers? Or is this what members must expect—that everyone tries to influence everybody else inside and outside the House with every comment you make? Is the speaker in a separate category, or is contempt equal to all members?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: I suppose the speaker is in a special category, as is the chairman. You're not going to question a member about a decision he's going to make, because the average member doesn't make that decision except perhaps with respect to a vote in the House. If you tried to intimidate the way he was going to vote—improperly intimidate him—you can editorialize, you can write letters, you can make speeches about how he'd be a damned fool to vote that way, what have you.

• 1135

It becomes improper when you try to improperly influence a member. And what is improper may not be improper in somebody else's mind; it has to be improper in your mind. You have to determine whether it's improper. With respect to the speaker or the chairman of a committee, if you tried to influence the way they were going to make a decision.... It depends on how you try to influence—by editorial, by letters, by parading in front of the building. But if it is an improper means—-

Mr. Chuck Strahl: If it were coercive or threatening.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: That's right. If it is threatening, intimidating, or coercive in some way—and of course you would have to determine whether that's improper—then that would constitute contempt.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. I think that's the nub of the question we're trying to deal with here—what is improper or threatening language. When the speakers were running for office.... They weren't running because they don't call it that; there were people we could elect for speaker. We invited them to talk to our caucus. We said there are certain things we would like to see a speaker do, and if that isn't what you're keen on doing, we're not going to vote for you. We said there's a style we want and a kind of freedom we want, and those are the kinds of people we would like to see in the chair. Are you going to follow that or not? We asked them to respond to that, and some answered the question and some didn't.

Is it coercive to say that? Is it coercive to tell somebody you would like them to follow this course of action and that's what you want? When I look at the threatening part—you say you do that and you had better check under your car tomorrow because there are going to be problems—that's coercive, that's threatening.

If you tell somebody you won't support that decision and you'll fight until the cows come home if they rule that way.... Is it up to us to decide?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: In law, in a criminal court, there are certain rules with respect to what constitutes intimidation and what doesn't—what was in the person's heart at that time and convincing a jury. In a sense, you're the jury here. You decide what is taking place and whether what has been said constitutes intimidation in your minds. You ladies and gentlemen make the rules here with respect to this. You can call upon dictionaries and events that took place elsewhere, but it's really up to you to determine whether something is proper or not proper.

For example, in the case of the speaker before you actually sat, one might say that in that case there was no parliamentary proceeding involved, so maybe there wasn't a problem about that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

What I'm trying to get at is when do the privileges of all members of Parliament to speak their minds and to engage in the democratic process...? And even the speaker's election is a democratic process now. To say this is what we look for in a speaker.... Let's say the next time there's a speaker to be elected I say I'm looking for a guy who doesn't want to sit on Fridays any more. That's what I want, and if he doesn't give me that I'm not voting for him. I'm telling you right now everybody may as well know it. And Mr. Speaker may as well know it too, because his job is on the line. I'm not voting for him unless he gives me Fridays off.

Isn't it my right as a member of Parliament to say I'm not going to support you in this because it's my democratic right to say otherwise, and doggone it I don't like it and I'll never like it. If you rule I'll have to follow the ruling, but I don't like it and I'm not going to support you again.

The Chairman: Mr. Maingot.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: What you're saying there doesn't sound improper. There has to be some notion of impropriety where your conscience suggests this should not be done. It sounds very open-ended, but traditionally they call upon the experiences of each member of that particular committee where they'd really hit on the right way or the wrong way.

The Chairman: Michel Bellehumeur, Bill Blaikie, and then Marlene Catterall.

• 1140

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Maingot, let's proceed by elimination. Is it true that a ruling by the Speaker can only be challenged on a substantive issue, and that this can only be done in the House of Commons?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: In fact, when you challenge—

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: To challenge a decision of the Speaker.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: At the present time, there is no appeal from such a ruling. In effect, you're not supposed to question a decision of the House when it has adopted a bill. Obviously, you have freedom of speech, but that does not extend to intimidation or other inappropriate statements.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No, but let us suppose that we are not pleased with a ruling. Beauchesne says with reference to the Speaker's work:

His actions cannot be criticized, even incidentally...except by way of a substantive motion.

In the House of Commons, a Speaker's ruling can be challenged by a substantive motion.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: In fact, this does not refer to a Speaker's ruling, but to his actions, to his behaviour. A Speaker's ruling cannot be appealed. If you are displeased with and want to challenge the conduct of the Speaker or of any member, be it the Speaker, a committee chair or a member, you have to introduce a motion.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You know the newspaper article where this issue is dealt with. Some statements are clearly threats, and others provocations. Some parts of the Speaker's eventual decision are used for political purposes.

There is also agreement that it is up to the committee to determine whether these are threats, provocations or something else. Do we agree on that?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I see. Could the statements of the kind reported in the article infringe on the authority of the House?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: They look serious. The article says that

[English]

there will be grave consequences. “Warn Parent, warn Parent”,

[Translation]

and that is stated without any further explanation. That could be considered serious and quite provocative.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Let us presume that we find that certain statements are clearly threats, really examples of provocation against the Speaker, along the lines "he would be advised to do that, otherwise I will defy him". In your view, do such statements constitute contempt of the House?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: Well, words means what they mean.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I don't want you to make a judgement about the statements. However, if after examining this issue, the committee were to find that such a statement is clearly a threat against the Speaker, or his authority is being defied, in your view should the committee conclude that such a position constitutes contempt of the House?,

Mr. Joseph Maingot: But you have the decision-making power here. That is one of your responsibilities, one of the options available to you.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I see. Let us presume that the committee, after considering and examining these statements, such as the one by Mr. Benoît Serré, finds that in one case they are clearly provocation and in the other threats. What I want to know is whether you, as an expert, believe that the committee should unequivocally decide that this is a case of contempt of the House.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: That is, a member will state that as a threat...

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Maingot, we are considering the case and, in our view—as a jury, as you indicated earlier—a given member of Parliament clearly made a threat against the Speaker. Should we conclude that such conduct constitutes contempt of the House?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: That's up to you to decide whether threatening someone constitutes contempt or not. Generally speaking, threats are considered to be quite a serious matter. When you threaten someone, that means you do not respect him or her.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: All right.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: So, contempt means not respecting the House, that is a member or someone in office.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I see. If you threaten the Speaker are you respecting him?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: Well I believe that it happened in the past, when Mr. Lloyd Francis was Speaker of the House, that people moved towards the Speaker's chair and really threatened him.

• 1145

On another occasion during the notorious "black Friday" in 1956, the NDP leader, Mr. Coldwell, moved towards the Speaker's chair, because he was angry. But everyone was angry.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Maingot, I will conclude on this point. I am a member of Parliament and, as far as I'm concerned the supreme authority of Parliament is the Speaker. If the Speaker is not able to enforce his authority, I think we would end up with anarchy. It would no longer be possible to function within the democratic system which we have.

I am a member of Parliament. If, while outside the House, I state that the Speaker handed down a decision which I do not like, if he stopped me from carrying a flag and I were to defy him on the first opportunity by wrapping the flag around me or waving it, that would be provocation. It is an attack on the authority of Parliament.

The Chairman: Mr. Maingot.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: It is up to you to decide what conduct constitutes a threat and perhaps contempt. That is up to you to decide. That is your responsibility.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If we find that it is a threat, is it also contempt? That is my question.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: That is your responsibility to decide. Some people could argue that a threat is not... What is the degree of threat? But that could be...

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: So if contempt is characterized as having been a threat...

[English]

The Chairman: Bill Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Maingot quite rightly refuses to do the work of the committee by coming to a conclusion all by himself. It seems to me this is a conclusion only the committee can come to, after having had the benefit not only of Mr. Maingot's testimony but also after hearing from the people who are the protagonists, if you like, in the article. I presume that opportunity will be forthcoming, as Mr. Maingot has suggested it should be.

The people named in the article and who are therefore primarily concerned with the motion that has been referred to the committee should have an opportunity to speak to the committee. We all have enough experience with the media to know that articles don't always reflect exactly what we intended. I would certainly think the people should have the benefit of that opportunity.

It will be up to the committee to decide whether the language is threatening, and if it's threatening, whether it's threatening to the extent that it constitutes contempt or not. That's a decision the committee will have to make. I think Mr. Maingot has made that perfectly clear, what the task of the committee is.

I also want to say, though, with respect to Mr. Strahl's comments, that there is a difference.... And I don't say this argumentatively, because I'm not sure what my own view will be of this; I reserve judgment until such time as we've completed the process. There is a difference between when there is no speaker and there are elections for speaker, and when there is a speaker, in the same way that I don't have all the privileges of a member of Parliament when I'm running for Parliament. After I become an MP, then I have a different status from when I was running for that office. I think the same is true of the speaker.

So I don't think we can take the view that there's any at least uncritical comparison between how we relate to candidates for the speakership and how we relate to the candidate who eventually becomes the speaker. That candidate who becomes the speaker, again referring to the metaphor or comparison Mr. Maingot used, is in some way, when we use the courts as a reference, the judge. We need to decide whether these kinds of comments, if they were made about a judge, would be held to be contentious. Perhaps there is a difference between speaker of a democratic parliament and a judge in a legal setting. There may indeed be differences. That's also something we have to explore.

I think there's a difference between candidacy and actual office-holding, and we shouldn't let ourselves get confused by that.

The Chairman: Mr. Maingot has a comment.

• 1150

Mr. Joseph Maingot: What Mr. Blaikie said was interesting. Actually, your privileges continue after dissolution of Parliament for a period of time. It depends on the statute, but for the federal member it continues for about 40 days. In other words, you can be protected from being intimidated for what you have said.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: If you're running—before you have even been a member of Parliament.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: Oh yes. Then you're like everybody else.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall, and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I would like to understand from you, as much as you can, how the authority and privileges of the House and the authority and privileges of the speaker are related. Are they one and the same, or are there subtle differences?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: The speaker, first of all, is a member, so he has the same privileges as everybody else. And the fact that he is the speaker.... You elect a speaker, you show respect for him, and if you show disrespect for him in his capacity as a speaker, as opposed to something else....

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm talking about the position rather than the person.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: The office.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We're talking about the office. Does the office have the same status as the House? If not, how does it differ?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: That's an interesting question.

I think it's the same as ridiculing a member, as opposed to ridiculing the office of speaker. Before privilege takes place, there has to be some connection to a parliamentary proceeding. If somebody is saying something about a member or the speaker in his capacity outside the House, in his own constituency, that does not constitute privilege or contempt. But when it's associated with the office, it seems to me if you were showing disrespect for the office of the speaker, it's actually the member who has the privilege.

The House, as a body, has the power and authority to protect itself, but you think in terms of the speaker and the actions of the speaker, as opposed to the office.

I can't recall where the actual office of the speaker has been abused by words. I suppose in a sense it was when that member grabbed the mace. The mace shows the authority of the House, and that was showing disrespect for the House. But when it comes to the office of speaker, you're showing disrespect for the speaker himself, as opposed to the office of the speaker.

I hope I'm not too confusing, Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Slightly, which is unusual.

The best I can do is to compare it to a game of any kind, where everybody knows what the rules are and you have a referee or an umpire to enforce those rules. If you didn't, people would be killing each other on the football field. Whether I like the rules or not, it's kind of irrelevant, but I do know that if I were a hockey player called to account by a referee and I chose to threaten the referee in whatever way, I would very quickly not be playing hockey. How far can I take that comparison in trying to come to some reasonable conclusion here?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: With respect, I wouldn't mention hockey players and members of Parliament in the same breath in that capacity.

The Chairman: It's a question of money.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: There is that.

The members of the House of Commons are elected. They represent the most important body in Canada and are democratically elected. They in a sense represent Canada. If you don't have respect for those persons, the body that makes laws for the country...if you permit that, you're not in good shape. Similarly, you're not in control if you permit disrespect for the speaker, disrespect for the House of Commons, or disrespect for the other legislative bodies.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You seem to be saying that disrespect for the speaker is exactly the same as disrespect for the House, that he's not just another member; he's quite a different member.

• 1155

Mr. Joseph Maingot: No, he's not just another member. He's equal, but a little more equal, because he's the speaker. You appointed him as your representative. He speaks on your behalf when the House is going to speak.

I'm trying to think of occasions on which the House itself is held in disrespect. It's not quite the same thing, because the speaker represents the House. In that sense, when you're disrespecting the speaker, you're disrespecting the House itself.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Chairman: Next is Stéphane Bergeron. Unless I see any other hands, we'll go to the second round.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, our task here is not an easy one; we have to determine what constitutes contempt. Essentially, contempt can be anything or nothing at all, if we so decide.

Something which in the past may have constituted contempt may not be considered as such if the committee so determines. However, if something which was not considered contempt in the past is now deemed by the committee to constitute contempt, then it should be so considered. Am I mistaken in stating that?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: It's up to you to decide whether certain facts constitute contempt. However, the final decision will be taken by the House. Your committee may recommend that certain behaviour be considered contempt. You recommend to the House that certain...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Maingot, if I correctly understood what you said earlier, there do not seem to be any precedents in this area. What happened in the past regarding cases of contempt of the House and the privileges of the House should not be taken into consideration since our committee has complete freedom to decide that what in the past was considered contempt may in this case not fall into that category, and what was not considered contempt in the past may in this case constitute contempt.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: Well, that calls to mind what Tennyson wrote in his poem Ulysses: "I am a part of all that I have met". You use your experience and what has happened in the past, then you put the past to one side and decide whether, in this particular case, it is contempt or not. It's up to you to decide.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I see, in your...

Mr. Joseph Maingot: What was considered contempt in a particular case in the past may, in your view, not constitute contempt at the present time.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I see. Therefore, anything or nothing may constitute contempt, depending on the decision of the committee.

In the second edition of your work Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, you state on page 13, and I quote:

An offence against the authority of the House constitutes contempt.

In answer to the question by my colleague, Ms. Catterall, a few minutes ago, you seemed to indicate—and I agree with you on this point—that the position of the Speaker is the very embodiment of the authority of the House. Therefore, any offence against the authority of the Speaker is an offence against the authority of the House and, as a result, constitutes contempt. Does threatening or seeking to intimidate the Speaker constitute an offence against his authority?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: I believe that a threat against the Speaker, a real threat, will always constitute an offence against his authority and contempt of Parliament because the Speaker is the representative of the House itself. So I would say that in this case you are right; an offence or a threat against the Speaker constitutes lack of respect. You can certainly recommend to the House to consider such conduct as contempt.

• 1200

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I simply take what you indicated to us, namely that "an offence against the authority of the House constitutes contempt", and if we agree that the Speaker embodies the authority of the House, a threat made against the Speaker in the eventuality that he may not take such or such a decision, is an offence against his authority and therefore, consequently, against the authority of the House. You agree with me on that.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: Yes, I think I would agree with that.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In the report on the Jacob case it is stated that:

Furthermore, an act may constitute contempt whether committed inside or outside Parliament.

So obviously within that frame of reference, we are dealing with an act committed outside the House.

But during the debate in the House I heard some of my colleagues saying that that was not exactly what they meant, that they had been quoted out of context. What is the value of a statement published in a newspaper in relation to the case currently before us? Are members considered responsible for statements attributed to them in the media?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: You have all been interviewed and you know what happens. That is why it is usually the practice to invite the persons concerned to repeat or explain the statements reported in the newspaper.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll go to Chuck Strahl, Rey Pagtakhan, and then Michel Bellehumeur, and we'll move it along a little bit more quickly this time.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with what someone said earlier about the newspaper article and the fact that we're going to end up dealing with the quotes and not with the editorializing that goes on between them, because some of this stuff puts words in people's mouths.

I'd just like to mention that one of the things that's interesting about the article is that prior to the speaker's ruling, Michel Gauthier told the speaker that they would not tolerate MPs singing. I'm intimidated by that. He says he won't tolerate it, and I feel my rights are being.... I don't know what he means by that. I'm quite nervous.

Besides that, and I'm intimidated as hell to even talk here, what I was trying to get at earlier, Mr. Maingot, was whether it is within the parliamentary privileges of a member of Parliament to move a motion of censure against the speaker.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Is it therefore a contempt of Parliament to say I may exercise my democratic rights tomorrow?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: When you're moving that, there has to be some charge. You have to charge a member. There has to be something that has to be acceptable, that if true, it could mean some discipline against the member.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So if you move a motion of censure and it doesn't pass, you could be censured yourself? The House will decide it, I realize that. But aren't I within my privileges to get up here in 15 minutes and go into the House and say that I move a motion of non-confidence in the speaker and I call for another election?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: The purpose of freedom of speech is for you to be able to raise instances of abuses that you feel have taken place and move them forth. As a result of that, a member should not be penalized for bringing forward a motion to that effect.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The appropriate time to bring forward a motion of censure to the speaker would be after a ruling. It doesn't have to be then; you could do it any time, but it is your democratic right as an MP to go in there.

The speaker has ruled against me several times, and I'll go on the record saying that I wished he'd ruled the other way, but I live with his rulings. I had to move on, so I did. I didn't move them in hopes that he would rule against me; I hoped that he would rule with me.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: It depends on whether you want precedents or not. If you're not interested in precedents in your motion, then you can just put it on the order paper and the notice of motion. If you want precedents, there has to be a charge in there before the House would actually get involved with it right away.

• 1205

Mr. Chuck Strahl: If the speaker makes a ruling on a point of privilege or even on a point of order and he has decided after looking at all the precedents and whatever that this is not a point of privilege or a point of order, is it my privilege to bounce up on my feet and say then I move to censure the speaker and ask for his removal?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: No, you don't do it that way.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do you have to put it on the order paper?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: Yes, you have to give notice.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I guess I could do it every time he made a decision.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: Theoretically, yes, you could, but you have to do it under the proper procedure.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I am really puzzled about how this could even be a contempt when people are attributed as saying...and this is editorializing. When Mr. Breitkreuz is saying it would be a fairly serious thing if he joined with the Bloc, it is hardly to me very provocative. I don't know how it can be contempt. Please clarify it if I am wrong, but if somebody says I may exercise my privileges as a member tomorrow to move a motion, I might do that. Isn't that an expression of my democratic right to say that?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: It is always a question of circumstance. I have mentioned before that when Lloyd Francis was Speaker of the House during the end of that Parliament—I forget the circumstances—members advanced on the speaker and he felt intimidated and threatened but nobody took action. Another time in 1956 members advanced upon the speaker on Black Friday, shaking their fists, and no one took action. So it depends on the circumstances at the particular time.

The Chairman: We'll have Mr. Pagtakhan and then Michel Bellehumeur.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A ruling of a speaker will be guided by the rules and Standing Orders of the House, by precedents that have been created. However, a speaker may also make a ruling de novo even if it is not clearly stipulated in the procedures of the House and in the Standing Orders if he feels there are circumstances that demand a particular ruling. In other words, he starts a unique precedent when a given set of circumstances.... Am I right in that understanding?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: That is a little different. We are moving a bit away from privilege. Speakers have in the past.... It was in England when the Irish were prolonging the debate, when the speaker, with the approval of two of the major parties, permitted closure to take place. It wasn't in the rules at that time. That was because of a particular circumstance at that time.

It would have to be quite exceptional for something like that to happen. Normally, as we all know, when the speaker rules he is citing precedents and what has happened in the past, and that is what he relies on and that is what members rely on too. You know what is going to happen because this is the practice and procedure and precedents that we have in the House.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I realize that, but precedents to begin with were not there before they were created. In other words, you can create precedents in the future, depending on a unique set of circumstances. They were not there to begin with. They were started once upon a time by precedessors.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: You have your rules that are set down. You follow the practice and then a factual situation comes up, a point of order, and the speaker rules on that, depending on what the rules are and what has happened in the past. Perhaps those factual situations didn't happen in the past, so he has to rule on it.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would like to follow on from the question of my colleague Marlene. I wonder if my understanding is now correct after your answers to her questions.

Disrespect for the speaker, because he is a part of the House and a servant of the House, the key official of House, would be disrespect for the House. However, disrespect for the House, which is the collective will of all of us, including the speaker in his capacity as a member of Parliament but not as a speaker, could happen without necessarily a disrespect for the speaker if there is no direct challenge to the speaker and the office of the speaker himself. Am I right in that understanding?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: If you were threatening or intimidating the House in some way that is a criminal offence.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: That would be the highest contempt.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: Yes, that could be a criminal case. You don't speak in terms of threatening a particular person, say, in the Criminal Code, in terms of threatening the speaker, because the House has a power to protect the speaker through contempt procedures.

• 1210

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Let me assume, then, that my analysis of the speaker of the House in that context is there.

You then mentioned the circumstances. Looking at the press report, as I was listening I wondered, am I now to look at this and be guided....? If I were to make a decision on this order of the day, am I right to think—and I am asking for your guideline—that when I look at the particular report of statement...?

I agree with my colleague Mr. Strahl that I will disregard anything that is not quoted. It could be the imagination, albeit beautiful, of the reporter himself, in this instance. If I were to judge a statement attributed to a colleague, were I asked to do that duty, should I limit myself only to the words within the quotation? Is that a good guideline?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: I don't know how you could do otherwise. What the person didn't say is not before you; before you is what's said here.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes. That is the second point, that part of the gathering of evidence....

Of course, all of this is hearsay, from the media—in other words, quoting the person. Only when we invite the person and say “Do you confirm that indeed you said this?” can we begin to pass judgment on whether the statement itself constitutes contempt. Before that, we have not established under the rules of evidence, to my knowledge, that in fact that has taken place, with all respect to the media.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: It's as I said earlier: the traditional thing is to ask the person, to give that person an opportunity to be heard and to explain what has been quoted.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Good.

When I then look at this statement and say look at that, depending on how I feel about it—was what they said an isolated statement, was it repeated over a period of time to several media reporters—it could influence my decision. Was it said in passion in the heat of debate about a particular issue of the day? I would take that into account, whether it was said or acted on spontaneously, or whether there was a spontaneous show of apology immediately after a potentially contemptuous statement or action.

Are those some of the things I have to consider? I'm seeking guidelines from you in making a judgment, were I to make it, on the question before us as a committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Maingot and then Michel Bellehumeur.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: You would take everything into consideration before you made a decision—what's fair and everything you feel is relevant for you to make a proper decision of the committee. That's what you'd take into account.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: One last thing, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Very briefly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I must admit—this can be recorded in committee, as it was in the House—I did participate in the flag-waving. I did sing the national anthem.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: How could you?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It was a spontaneous show of love for the country. Truthfully, with all sincerity, I did not at all remember that it might be impeding a proceeding of the House. Thereafter, when the passion of the moment disappeared, lo and behold, it was indeed a disruption of the proceeding of the House. That is why I welcomed the wisdom of the speaker's ruling.

I thought I should put that on record.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Michel Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I have just one small comment, Mr. Speaker. It makes me laugh when I hear that it was spontaneous, whereas we know that the Reform and Liberal members had had their little flags ready for a three days waiting for Suzanne Tremblay to rise in the House so that they could put on their show. They claim that it was spontaneous, but they had been orchestrating all that for three days.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It was spontaneously orchestrated.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Maingot, following up on the discussions by Reform and Liberal members, I wonder whether it is not an aggravating factor to place this case under consideration. It is one thing to question a decision by the Speaker, to not agree, to try to explain oneself and indicate that he did not make the best decision but that we will live with it. But it is a different matter, when a question is under advisement, to resort outside the House to provocation, threats or some other means to try and intimidate or threaten the Speaker and make him change his mind. Given that the matter is under advisement, does this not constitute an aggravating factor which the committee should look at?

• 1215

Mr. Joseph Maingot: I wouldn't want to avoid answering the question, but that is one of the reasons why you must make such a decision. Whether the question is taken under advisement or the decision already made, there are ways of showing your discontent, but the decision of the Speaker must be respected. As Mr. Strahl indicated, there are ways. Whether the matter is under advisement or not, it is up to you to make a decision after taking all those points into consideration and determining whether it is an aggravating factor or not.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It seems to me that you were more precise and talkative in 1996, Mr. Maingot. I don't know, but it seems to me that you were more spontaneous then. I will quote the statement you made on May 16, 1996 at the beginning of your testimony before this committee in relation to the Jacob case:

It really involves that other aspect of parliamentary privilege, the right of the House of Commons to determine whether someone is in contempt of the House. In other words, to put it in the vernacular, you have to ask if this is the kind of activity that an honorable member should not be engaged in because it undermines or tends to undermine respect for an institution of Parliament, the House of Commons.

Given the statements that you made on May 16, what is your view about a member of Parliament who, knowing that a question is currently under advisement, states outside the House that the Speaker has absolutely no choice but to decide that the Canadian flag and the Canadian national anthem are not included when reference is made to props? The member is reported to have said that if the Speaker decides otherwise, I will be extremely offended and I believe that we will have to ask for the election of a new Speaker.

That's one thing that one member said. Another member said that the Speaker was not above the Canadian flag, and that there would be serious consequences if he did not rule in favour of the flag.

Another member of Parliament said, "If he decides that I cannot wear this flag, I will wear it anyway."

Mr. Maingot, are these the kind of things that members of Parliament should be doing? Should this become a general practice? When the Speaker takes a matter under consideration, is it acceptable to threaten him and intimidate him outside the Chamber? Mr. Maingot, does the statement I just quoted constitute disrespect towards the parliamentary institution known as the House of Commons? Should we be making such comments? Is this a form of disrespect toward the House?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: I could repeat what I said in 1977, but I won't. I would just like to point out that it is up to you to answer the question: What represents contempt of Parliament? In any event, the remarks that were reported in the newspaper are clear, and I can read the newspaper too. Usually, one asks the person to come and explain himself, and one asks if that is indeed what he meant. These are circumstances that you can look at and question.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Maingot, you are an expert with lots of experience. Myself, I haven't been following parliamentary matters for a very long time. You are an expert with a great deal of experience. You are familiar with the precedents. I am sure you looked at what happens in all the Commonwealth countries who have parliamentary practices similar to our own. I think that as an expert and as a witness, you are here to help us assess all that.

Mr. Maingot, when a member of Parliament says that he didn't say that, and furthermore, other members repeat in the House what the first gentleman said to the journalist, and in light of the quotes I read out to you earlier, do you think that this is showing disrespect toward the House of Commons? Since you are an expert and a fellow with a lot of experience, I would like you to give us your point of view. In your opinion, does this constitute disrespect? The member admits that he said it, and we can table the Hansard to show that he repeated it in the House.

The Chairman: Mr. Maingot, followed by Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: He is an expert. We are entitled to ask him questions.

• 1220

Mr. Joseph Maingot: We certainly could go through all the precedents from the entire Commonwealth and find something similar and find cases where a Speaker ruled that there was a contempt. You are asking me for my opinion. My role here is to tell you what your power is, what you can do, and it's up to you to do it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So, you don't want to answer the question.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: No, that's not it. I am not a member of Parliament.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Maingot, let me quote a passage from the Jacob affair for you:

In addition, an act may constitute contempt whether it is committed within Parliament or outside of Parliament.

The order of reference that we have here reads as follows:

That certain statements attributed to members of the House of Commons, appearing on page 7 of the March 8, 1998 Ottawa Sun, which may bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant the Speaker, be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Pursuant to this reference, Mr. Maingot, does this committee have the power to summon before it members of Parliament who said the same thing as what was recorded in the Ottawa Sun article, or even worse, said it in the House of Commons when the debate was held? Does this reference go so far as to authorize us to summon these members of Parliament who made similar remarks or who went even further in their statements in the House regarding this same matter?

The Chairman: Mr. Maingot.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: You certainly have the authority to ask them to testify before you. Apparently the article contains threatening statements. You have to ask what the threats are, because their definition can vary, depending on the circumstances. It depends on the circumstances under which someone wants to threaten someone, and whether or not the remarks are appropriate. One must act within a proper, suitable framework. That is how this matter must be tackled and studied.

Look at all the circumstances, look at what the newspaper reports, and listen to the member's explanations. Perhaps he will give you the same explanation, or perhaps he will say something even worse. It is up to you, as members of the committee, to decide what you will do with all this. It's your decision.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I must tell you that when I say to someone that he really should do something, or else..., well, "or else" can mean lots of things. In this particular case, it could mean that he's going to have both legs broken, or it could mean that people will make sure that he loses his job. People were clearly trying to influence the Speaker's decision while the matter was under consideration. Normally, in law, when a matter is under consideration, no one should make public statements about it. So, in this case, someone obviously contravened this principle.

However, I would like to go back to your response. If I understood what you were saying, you're telling us that pursuant to the order of reference that we have, we can summon people before us to appear, and I do mean appear, before this committee. We can summon members of Parliament who may have made similar statements or even worse statements about the same matter outside the newspaper article, that is to say, statements that are not in the newspaper article, but which are to be found, for example, in the House of Commons Debates.

The Chairman: Mr. Maingot.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: As I was saying, a committee that receives an order of reference to review something that was written in the newspaper usually asks the person who is quoted to come and appear before the committee to explain what he said and why.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Pardon me for interrupting you, Mr. Maingot, but I am telling you about another member of Parliament who, during the debate on this order of reference, apparently rose in the House of Commons and said that he totally agreed with what his colleagues had told the Ottawa Sun, and he too thought that if the Speaker ruled against the Canadian flag, he would be completely entitled call for a new Speaker. Pursuant to the order of reference that we have here, can we call in a member of Parliament to appear before this committee, a member whose name was not quoted in the Ottawa Sun? Can we summon him before the committee so he can explain his remarks and eventually we can determine whether his statements constitute contempt of the House?

• 1225

Mr. Joseph Maingot: If it is not specified in your order of reference, it is not part of it. The Order of Reference specifies the statements that were attributed to certain members of Parliament in the newspaper article. Mr. Schmidt's name is not mentioned there.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You are contradicting yourself there, Mr. Maingot. In your response to the first question I asked you, you told me that the committee had the power to call all members of Parliament who did anything that could constitute contempt of the House in this affair.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: If I said that, I was wrong.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You were wrong.

Mr. Joseph Maingot: I was wrong. Obviously, according to the usual practice, a committee cannot go any further than the order of reference adopted by the House, despite the fact that you are the ones who will be interpreting the order of reference. But in this case, you have the people's names and usually you just ask these people to come before the committee and testify.

[English]

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have two or three comments.

First, in Beauchesne's, rule 31(3) says “Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege.” That's interesting, as is rule 69; that one says “It is very important...to indicate that something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can even be offensive, but it may not be a question of privilege unless the comment actually impinges upon the ability”. I think you've said that. In other words, it actually has to stop somebody from doing something.

My last comment is that it is interesting that in the cases you mentioned, in which the speaker was threatened by people shaking their fists in his face back in the 1956 case and so on, nothing happened to those members. And people grabbed the mace, but nothing happened to them. But somebody comments in a newspaper and here we are in committee, trying to decide.

My last real question has to do with rule 71 in Beauchesne's. The speaker ruled during the pipeline debate that although articles about his actions were printed in the paper and had been brought to his attention, “it is impossible, if we are to consider freedom of the press, as we should, to take these two articles as being breaches of our privileges.” In other words, he said that if there are comments in the press, that's the way she goes.

My concern is whether or not any person—not just members of Parliament, but any person—can be brought before this committee for something written in a newspaper. Is that possible? It has been referred before. I think there are a lot of letters to the editor right now that are commenting pro and con on the speaker's ruling. Is there anything about that rule that says if someone states “I don't like the speaker's ruling”, he or she could be brought before this committee?

Mr. Joseph Maingot: Well, it could be brought before the House, and the speaker would have to decide whether it constitutes a real question of privilege. It would then be brought before the committee if the House agreed.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I'd like to thank Mr. Maingot for his patience. This has been a very useful meeting in setting the frame of reference for our deliberations.

It seems to me that the next meeting on this topic should be a steering committee meeting, but I would ask members to maintain our regular times next week. Those would be 11 a.m. on Tuesday and 11 a.m. on Thursday, for meetings either on this topic or on the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Maingot, thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.