Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

March 23, 1993

Debates, pp. 17404-5

On March 16, 1993, Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce) rose on a question of privilege regarding comments allegedly made by Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont) in reference to the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole (Charles DeBlois). The remarks had been made at a public meeting and were published in the March 14, 1993 edition of the weekly Beauport-Express. It was reported that Mr. Tremblay had said that: “Charles DeBlois, one of the acting speakers of the House, is a party to collusion to restrict our party’s right to speak in Ottawa.” Mr. Bernier argued that Mr. Tremblay should withdraw and apologize for casting doubts on the integrity and impartiality of the speakership. The Speaker advised that as Mr. Tremblay was not present in the Chamber, the appropriate course of action would be for the Speaker to meet with Mr. Tremblay, after which time the matter could be pursued in the House.^[1]

On March 23, 1993, the Speaker advised the House that after a number of discussions, he felt it appropriate to recognize the Mr. Tremblay. The latter said that the sentence quoted in the newspaper article was reported out of context. He added that he had also said at the meeting in question that by accepting the appointment as Deputy Chairman, Mr. DeBlois “had put himself in a position where he had to apply rules that did not recognize the Bloc Québécois, with the approval of the traditional parties here in this House.” With respect to his use of the term “collusion” in the impugned quote, Mr. Tremblay conceded that since “collusion” connotes an element of secrecy, perhaps he should have used the word “coalition” instead. Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell) and Mr. Bernier both intervened to take issue with Mr. Tremblay’s statement. In light of the latter’s refusal to withdraw the offensive remarks, Mr. Bernier presented to the House the text of the motion for referral of the matter to committee which he was prepared to move should the Speaker find a prima facie question of privilege. Other Members also intervened on the matter.^[2] The Speaker ruled immediately, and his ruling is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: This is, of course, a rather difficult situation, not only for the Speaker and the honourable Member, but also for the House.

I listened carefully to what was said by the honourable Member for Rosemont. He may have given some explanation of the circumstances in which he made the comments that were quoted in the paper in question.

However, I have some difficulty with the facts, because clearly, if we consider only what was quoted in the newspaper, those words are, in my opinion, unacceptable to this House. If we consider the words that were reported, we clearly have a prima facie case that affects the dignity of this House and our colleague, because our colleague is an officer of this House. As the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell said earlier, like the Speaker he is an officer of this House, and an attack against the integrity of a person in that position is an attack against this House.

As I said before, I listened to the comments of the honourable Member for Rosemont, and I assume the crux of the problem is the position of the Bloc in this House. I realize that there have been ongoing complaints by some members of the Bloc Québécois about their status as a party in this House.

However, all Members, and the public as well, must realize the decision on the status of Members of the Bloc Québécois was not made by the Speaker or by our colleague.

If the honourable Member for Rosemont would accept this distinction and perhaps be willing to withdraw this morning the comments he made in referring to the Speaker—and as the Speaker of this House I am his Speaker as well—we would accept that.

However, in the circumstances, I think that for the sake of relations between Bloc Québécois Members and the other Members of this House, it would be entirely appropriate to withdraw altogether the comments reported in the paper.

If there is a withdrawal, it would be preferable to make it here. I therefore suggest that the honourable Member for Rosemont consider the Chair’s comments and perhaps, after a moment’s reflection, he will wish to withdraw entirely the comments that were quoted in the paper.

Mr. Tremblay argued right after that he had made it quite clear that he did not blame the Speaker for the decision not to recognize the Bloc Québécois. He added that he did not accept that the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole had knowingly chosen to accept the position of Deputy Assistant Chairman without being aware that would mean applying rules which did not allow for the recognition of the Bloc Québécois.^[3] The Speaker then continued:

The Speaker: First of all, I want to thank the honourable Member for his comments and his explanation, but there still is a problem. Although the honourable Member for Rosemont has put forward certain arguments which are not altogether impossible to understand especially in politics, I still think we are faced with a difficult situation for the House.

Consequently, having found there is a prima facie case I am going to put the motion of the honourable Member for Beauce to the House. Then it will be for the committee and the House to decide. The honourable Member for Rosemont will of course have a chance to discuss the matter with his colleagues in the Chamber at the committee.

It may well be that out of that discussion may come something useful in terms of the general amity of Members among themselves. I do think it is a matter for the House to decide.

The Speaker then put the question on the following motion of Mr. Bernier, seconded by Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):

That the matter of the comments made by Mr. Tremblay, Member for Rosemont, with regard to Mr. DeBlois, Member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, as reported in the March 14, 1993, edition of the newspaper Beauport-Express be referred to the Standing Committee on House Management.^[4]

Immediately after the motion was adopted, Mr. Tremblay questioned the Speaker about the reasons for his decision. The Speaker made the following remarks.

The Speaker: The honourable Member for Rosemont will understand it is not appropriate for the Chair to give an explanation after making its decision. However, I suggested he withdraw his remarks as reported in the paper. The honourable Member may not agree with this suggestion by the Chair but lacking a specific statement by the honourable Member in which he withdraws his words, I believe it is appropriate to give the House and the committee an opportunity to consider this matter. The honourable Member has every right to explain his case, and he will have ample opportunity to do so in committee. After this brief explanation, I think the case is closed. Once the committee has tabled its report, the House may have a chance to consider the matter again. However, for the time being, the case is closed.

On March 25, 1993, Mr. Tremblay announced to the House that he wished “to withdraw the comments that were construed as offensive.” The Speaker expressed appreciation for the Member’s gesture and hoped the matter was resolved.^[5] There is no record that the Standing Committee on House Management considered the matter.

F0118-e

34-3

1993-03-23