Special Debates / Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

Alleged contempt of the House: Prime Minister accused of not respecting the amendment to the Address

March 22, 2005

Debates, pp. 4452-3

On March 8, 2005, Jay Hill (Prince George–Peace River) rose on a question of privilege, charging Paul Martin (Prime Minister) with contempt of the House. He claimed that the amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, agreed to on October 18, 2004, provided that Parliament would have the opportunity to debate and to vote prior to an agreement on ballistic missile defence with the United States.^[1] Mr. Hill argued that the Prime Minister had failed to respect this commitment. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) countered that, since the decision had been not to participate, there was no agreement and thus nothing to debate or to vote on.^[2] After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[3]

The Speaker delivered his ruling on March 22, 2005. He noted that he was being asked to pronounce on a case virtually unprecedented in Canadian or Commonwealth practice involving an amendment to the Address. He added that the dispute centred on different interpretations of the text of the amendment and was thus a matter of debate. Noting that it was not for the Speaker to impose his own interpretation of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, he ruled that it was not a prima facie case of contempt.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 8, 2005 by the hon. Opposition House Leader concerning the alleged failure of the Prime Minister to allow Parliament to debate the decision of the Government regarding ballistic missile defence.

I would like to thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for raising this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House and the hon. Members for Calgary–Nose Hill and Sackville–Eastern Shore for their contributions.

In his submission, the hon. Opposition House Leader argued that the Prime Minister was in contempt of the House for failing to keep his promise to consult Parliament and to hold a vote before the Government made its decision not to participate in the United States ballistic missile defence plan.

He argued that when the House adopted the amended Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne on October 8, 2004, it had agreed to debate the participation of Canada in missile defence and that the House had been given no opportunity to consider the matter before the Government announced that Canada would not participate. He quoted paragraph 5 of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne which states:

With respect to an agreement on ballistic missile defence, the assurance that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider all public information pertaining to the agreement and to vote prior to a government decision.

The hon. Opposition House Leader likened the Throne Speech to a promissory note to Parliament. He maintained that the Address in Reply contained a promise to debate ballistic missile defence prior to a Government decision being made and that the Government had reneged on this promise.

In presenting his argument, the hon. Member cited a Speaker’s ruling from November 21, 2001 concerning the failure of the Government to comply with a statutory requirement to table certain information in the House. In that case, the Speaker stated that, had there been a legislative deadline for tabling the required information, the Speaker would not have hesitated to have found the matter a prima facie breach of privilege.

The hon. Opposition House Leader argued that in the current situation, the adoption of the amended Address in Reply contained a conditional deadline that was tied to a decision of the Government. The Government ignored this time commitment and made its decision without providing Parliament with information pertaining to the proposed missile defence agreement as required in the amendment to the Address in Reply.

In his intervention, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House indicated that, in the view of the Government, a debate on participation in ballistic missile defence was contingent on reaching an agreement with the United States. As the hon. Minister stated:

Since there was no agreement, there was in fact nothing to debate and therefore nothing to vote on.

I have examined the November 21, 2001 ruling referred to by the hon. Opposition House Leader. In that decision, the Speaker stated at page 7381 of Hansard, that given the lack of a specified deadline in the statute for the tabling of the regulations concerned, Parliament had provided the Minister with some latitude in fulfilling the tabling requirement. As the Opposition House Leader pointed out, the Speaker would not have hesitated to find a prima facie question of privilege had a deadline existed. However, in the absence of such a deadline, the Speaker felt it would not be appropriate for the Speaker to impose a deadline to table the information and so substitute his judgment for the decision of Parliament.

In the current case, the dispute centres on conflicting readings of the text of the amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, so let us begin by a careful review of that text.

I draw to hon. Members’ attention the wording of the lead in to the text of the amendment proposed by the Official Opposition and eventually incorporated into the Address. It reads as follows:

That Your Excellency’s advisors consider the advisability of the following:

A five paragraph text is then inserted into the Address, the fifth paragraph being what concerns us today. Taken together, the full text reads thus:

That Your Excellency’s advisors consider the advisability of the following:…

5. with respect to an agreement on ballistic missile defence, the assurance that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider all public information pertaining to the agreement and to vote prior to a government decision;

I remind the House that the Speaker is being asked to pronounce on a case that is virtually unprecedented in our practice, or in any other Canadian or Commonwealth practice for that matter, namely, a case where an amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne has been adopted. Since the actions of the Government further to the adoption of the Address are under dispute, the meaning of the amendment is of primary importance so that we are left to fall back on an exegesis of that text.

I see three features in the text that must be noted. First, the text asks only that Her Excellency’s advisors, that is the Government, consider various courses of action; second, the text refers to “an agreement on ballistic missile defence” and seeks “the assurance that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider all public information pertaining to the agreement”; and three, the text requests that Parliament be given an opportunity “to vote prior to a Government decision”.

Let us consider these points seriatim.

On the first point, the language is not prescriptive. Indeed, were the motion worded so as to enjoin Her Excellency, it would likely not be ruled in order since it would infringe on the prerogatives of the Crown.

On the second point, as the hon. Government House Leader points out, there is no agreement on ballistic missile defence so the action requested in the event of an agreement becomes moot.

The third point is an inherent contradiction. The text asks for “a vote prior to a Government decision”, presumably a decision for or a decision against, when the rest of the text refers to a case predicated on an agreement, an agreement extant, presumably, only in the case of a decision for.

I trust that the House will see the impossible task before a Speaker rash enough to accept to judge compliance in this case. I am sure, as the hon. Member can see, even this brief analysis of the Address in Reply raises many more questions than it answers. I believe that these are not questions that the Speaker is bound to answer.

The House saw fit to adopt the amended Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne in the language I have read out. It is not for your Speaker to impose his interpretation of the Address in Reply on the House. It appears to me that what we have here is a dispute as to interpretation and, consequently, a matter of debate. Therefore, I cannot find that there is a prima facie case of contempt.

The precedent having been set, the House of Commons on two subsequent occasions adopted amended motions for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.^[4]