House of Commons Hansard #164 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

ImmigrationOral Question Period

11:55 a.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mary Clancy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, again, yesterday saw major reforms in policy announced by the minister to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Today the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board will be announcing further changes within the administration of that board. While there have been problems in this board, this is a good board and it serves Canadians well.

If the Reform Party and the hon. member for North Vancouver are so concerned about criminality it might have behoved them to support Bill C-44 when it was in the House.

IndiaOral Question Period

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Recently several Canadian citizens have been arrested or harassed while travelling in India.

There is evidence that the Indian authorities are detaining individuals without charge. Coincidentally this harassment and unfounded police interrogation are directed particularly at Canadians of Sikh origin.

Will the minister on behalf of the Government of Canada send a strong message to the Indian government to put an end to this practice and human rights violations with minorities in India?

IndiaOral Question Period

11:55 a.m.

Northumberland Ontario

Liberal

Christine Stewart LiberalSecretary of State (Latin America and Africa)

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is very concerned about the detention of some Sikh Canadians who have been travelling to India.

To be more specific, recently there was a case in which a Canadian was held for about a week and others recently for shorter periods of time.

Our high commissioner in New Delhi has followed up on every case of detention that he has been aware of and through him and other officials here in Ottawa we have relayed to the government in India our concern about this issue and hope that it will be dealt with.

LabourOral Question Period

March 3rd, 1995 / 11:55 a.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

A strike is now looming between CP Rail and two unions. Negotiations could break down by Monday and CP has said that in that event it would use replacement workers.

What is the minister doing to ensure that negotiations do not break down, thereby avoiding a potentially bitter labour-management dispute?

LabourOral Question Period

11:55 a.m.

York North Ontario

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, following the release of the Hope report the parties were urged to resume negotiations and settle their differences through collective bargaining.

I am pleased to report that bargaining has resumed at all three railways with intensive talks being held at CP Rail in an effort to conclude an early settlement.

The BudgetOral Question Period

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec-Est, QC

Mr. Speaker, we learned from the budget that allocations to Canada Mortgage and Housing will be cut by almost $215 million in 1995-96. More than half this amount, over $105 million, was earmarked for public housing.

My question is for the acting prime minister. Would he not agree that, by cutting public housing subsidies this way, the government is directly attacking the basic needs of the most vulnerable families in our society, contrary to the promises made in the red book?

The BudgetOral Question Period

Noon

Saint-Léonard Québec

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano LiberalSecretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm, in this regard, that the federal government will continue to support and subsidize public housing, at a cost of $2 billion a year. This is for some 660,000 public housing units occupied by over a million families including many natives living on and off reservations.

However, deficit reduction requirements dictated cuts in this sector as in all other sectors, departments and services. The Minister of Finance acted responsibly, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation had to accept these cuts.

Low Level FlightsOral Question Period

Noon

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The federal environmental review panel has recommended that the Department of National Defence be allowed to double the number of low level training flights over Labrador and Quebec. However it has imposed a number of conditions, including the early settlement of land claims, the establishment of an institute to study and monitor the effects of the flights and the establishment of a joint management board for the George River caribou herd.

The minister is aware that the panel refused to listen to issues raised by aboriginal people relating to their land. Is he prepared to recommend rejection of the report? What steps is he willing to take to ensure that the conditions are met as established by the panel?

Low Level FlightsOral Question Period

Noon

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the report of

the environmental panel was given to the Minister of the Environment and me a few days ago. We decided to make it public at the earliest opportunity.

As to the future of low level flying on the east coast out of Goose Bay, that will be decided by cabinet in due course.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

Noon

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that yesterday, as recorded in Hansard , I raised a question of privilege. I informed the House that I would raise this matter today after question period. Furthermore, I advised the whips of the other parties in the House, including the member for Guelph-Wellington, of my intention to raise this question of privilege because it is a question that relates to comments she made.

I rise today on a question of privilege. My query comes after reading a column that interestingly enough is entitled "Question Period". Question period is published in each weekly edition of a newspaper very well known here on the Hill, called the Hill Times . Members of this place will be familiar with a specific column, a vox populi, very similar to other vox populi we see in other media, where four individuals are asked a question, often of members of Parliament, often of individuals who work on the Hill, and they offer a response.

This week's question was: "Is there too much secrecy surrounding the budget?" The Bloc member for La Prairie, for example, answered:

The government has to maintain secrecy around the budget, not to favour certain investors. But there should be more transparency about the budget, to give a better idea of it without giving precise measures and details.

That is what the member for La Prairie is reported to have said.

Two other respondents, the members for Ottawa Centre and Provencher, also echoed their hon. colleague's understanding of secrecy. However, and this is the point of fact, the member for Guelph-Wellington gave a very troubling answer. In response to the clear and concise question: "Is there too much secrecy surrounding the budget" she is quoted as saying:

I don't think so. There were some MPs who were told beforehand if major cuts were coming to programs in their ridings. They asked for that in caucus so they could prepare to ask questions.

I will just repeat the words because they are serious: "some MPs were told beforehand". Needless to say, I find this statement very troubling. I want to explain why I find it troubling but I also want to explain why I feel this to be a prima facie violation of my rights and privileges as a member of Parliament.

I want to quote another parliamentarian on this same issue who outlined the importance of the budget being confidential until budget night. By the way there is some real irony in this quote. This is a quote that I draw from the Debates at page 2283 of Hansard of December 12, 1979. It reads:

The confidentiality in which the details of a budget are kept secret is a constitutional practice which forms an integral part of a parliamentary system. Such practice is based on the principle that no individual, whoever he may be, must know in advance the details of a budget which he could use for personal gain.

That quote is from the right hon. Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons in 1979. I am sure the Prime Minister intended to include the Liberal caucus in his designation when he said "whoever".

To facilitate your work, Mr. Speaker, I also reviewed the past occasions when the House had to deal with budget leaks. Not to undermine the seriousness of any budget leak allegations, I am sure you will also agree that with the incidents of the past came also odd and unusual circumstances.

You will remember a photographer having snapped a picture of the Minister of Finance at the time, Mr. Lalonde, reviewing budget documents, and that incident being the object of debate in the House and another question of privilege. I also remember, Mr. Speaker, and I know that you were in the House at the time, a colleague of mine who had one of his documents fall into the hands of the media before the formal announcement of the budget.

In the past, when dealing with such rather isolated incidents, your predecessors ruled: "There was some doubt whether the convention of budget secrecy falls within the area of privilege". In fact, that is a quote which can be found in Jurisprudence parlementaire de Beauchesne , with which I am sure other members are familiar.

I quickly realized, and I am sure you will too, Mr. Speaker, that the very nature of this revelation makes this case a precedent which stands by itself. Never have we had, as far as I know in any research that we have done, any situation where a specific member of Parliament has boldly admitted to having obtained privileged information relating to the budget before it was formally announced. Nor are there any precedents where a whole caucus of this place, according to the statement made by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington, was actually informed in advance of the contents of the budget. I have not found any precedents in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, we have nowhere to turn but to you. We are not in the presence of a leak of a titbit of information to a controlled number of people for what has never been more than a very short period of time, like the situations we have faced in the past. Neither have we ever been in the presence of what I reasonably fear to be a concerted effort on the part of someone to give a

great deal of information to the largest body of members in the House, namely the Liberal caucus, at a day and time we can only yet still ignore.

I will not get into all the questions that this situation brings up, and you will know that there are many dimensions to this question. They are all very grave. Most of the time they have called for the resignation of the Minister of Finance.

I want to raise a very specific issue in regard to this principle. I am putting this question of privilege because I believe that the matter I am talking about poses a grave hindrance to my ability to accomplish my duties as a member of Parliament for the riding of Sherbrooke.

It is greatly troubling to me, should such actions be found to be true, that the people of my riding and all Canadians would find disrepute and maybe even contempt for this place. In such circumstances I fail to see how any of us would be able to accomplish our work properly. That is surely a question of privilege for myself and for every person here.

Even more sad is what this could mean for free speech. I respectfully ask that you consider in your ruling whether debate in this House can be truly free, frank and sincere if members are led to believe that the contents of the budget that are supposed to be secret for all, without exception, when in the end the truth is revealed to us that the members of the governing party were privy to a special complicity with the Minister of Finance.

The budget is at the heart of why we sit in Parliament. It is at the very heart of what this parliamentary institution is all about. We are here to vote on behalf of our constituents the moneys that allow us to live in a democracy and not pursuant to the whims of an all powerful despot.

That is why the first Commons took away powers from the monarch and that is why this member is claiming back those privileges today. I respectfully ask that you consider this matter, Mr. Speaker, with great attention, urgency and severity.

In conclusion, what we are facing today as a question of privilege is a situation where certain members of the House of Commons, namely the Liberal caucus, according to a public admission by the member for Guelph-Wellington, received privileged, secret information before budget day to the detriment of the members who sit on the opposite side of the House.

Based on that fact, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on this question of privilege.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, there are two issues before the House. First, is this a legitimate question of privilege? Second, was there a breach of the secrecy of the budget?

I will deal with these two issues in reverse order. We should all be reminded that the member who has just raised this question of privilege knows about cabinet secrecy. I would have hoped that in his remarks he could have borne that in mind a little more than he did. I am sorry that he failed in that regard.

I wish to bring to members' attention the question of the secrecy of the budget. There was no breach in the secrecy of the budget. On reading the article yesterday in the newspaper, I telephoned the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington and spoke to her about her comments in the Hill Times .

I asked her to put her response in writing and to send it to me so that I could share it very briefly with the House today. In the memorandum she sent to me, which I am perfectly willing to table with the Clerk later with the consent of the House if such were forthcoming, is the following:

To: Don Boudria, Chief Government Whip From Brenda Chamberlain, M.P. Re: Our Conversation

In reference to your question, I was referring specifically to the caucus briefing which was held approximately one hour prior to the tabling by the President of the Treasury Board of measures to deal with downsizing in the federal public service.

That downsizing document was tabled on February 21. It has nothing to do with the budget document. There may well have been issues tabled by the President of the Treasury Board that were later reflected in budget decisions.

That may be so but it was not information that was given to Liberal members of Parliament and denied to anyone else. As a matter of fact, the tabling occurred at ten o'clock that morning. That is easily verifiable and I am sure all hon. members, including the member in question, were here that morning.

The hon. member remembers well that the document was tabled. I read from the letter in question:

This announcement took place one week before the budget and dealt with downsizing in the federal public service, which was part of the federal budget. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

I will certainly table the letter if it is the wish of the House.

The second issue is the following. Is it in fact a question of privilege? I wish to bring to members' attention Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 13, citation 31(5) which says:

Budget secrecy is a political convention, and if breached,

It was not as we have just identified:

-the Minister may be attacked through a substantive motion, but not through a question of privilege.

That was ruled that way on April 19, 1983.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention the following decision made on November 18, 1981 by the then Speaker, the late Madam Sauvé: "Certainly the matter of budget secrecy is not dealt with through questions of privilege and there are very important precedents which I will recall to hon. members". She then cited a whole number of cases where it has been ruled not to be an issue of privilege.

In summary, there has not been a case of breach of budget secrecy and there is not a question of privilege now before the House.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to speak before one of the government members replied, who would then have been able to respond to my comments as well.

Like the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I wanted to quote what was said by the Prime Minister when he was in the opposition, on a similar question concerning a budget leak. I will not repeat the same quote, but I would like to quote what was said by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice in Hansard of July 24, 1975: ``The tradition of secrecy ensures that all Canadians will be kept at the same advantage or disadvantage with respect to any budgetary matter and that any announcement will be made first in

When, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke pointed out, we look at what was said by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington, the members of the Liberal caucus must have known how the budget would affect their respective ridings before it was brought down.

I do not think a member of Parliament should have advance knowledge, before Parliament and members of this House, of the consequences of budget cuts for his or her own riding. This raises a number of questions for me, as a parliamentarian, and my constituents will have a few as well.

If it is true that the Liberal caucus had advance knowledge of this budget, there must be Liberals who obtained some personal or political gain from that knowledge. They were able to prepare answers for their constituents before anyone else, and that is a personal gain.

Furthermore, what assurances does Parliament have that the minister did not, following his presentation of the budget to the Liberal caucus, change parts of his budget in response to undue pressure from members of his party? How can we be sure? We cannot.

I do not, and the official opposition does not think the hon. member's response to the comments by the hon. member for Shefford was satisfactory. Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but in the past, when there were leaks or alleged leaks, the matter was usually referred to a committee of the House for clarification.

Considering that the hon. member's reply fails to satisfy members on this side of the House, I would like the Chair to take the matter under advisement and refer it to a committee, for thorough clarification of an issue that goes to the very core of the Canadian parliamentary system. It is the government, through such practices, that is making trouble in this Parliament.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It certainly is a very serious concern in light of citation 31 of Beauchesne's :

Budget secrecy is a political convention and if breached, the minister may be attacked through a substantive motion, but not through a question of privilege.

Certainly this is a very serious matter.

Representing the Reform Party in this House we ask questions of a general nature regarding rumours around the budget and we are told that the specifics or even generalities could not be dealt with in this House until the budget was tabled.

It comes as some shock to me to find out that one caucus in this House was made privy to the details of the budget. According to this article in the paper, the question is whether there is too much secrecy surrounding the budget, not the documents that the hon. government whip was talking about. This is a very serious matter.

Never at any time was our caucus approached by the departmental officials of finance or the minister on whether we would want a briefing on details that would affect even our individual ridings.

Were I as a member of Parliament to have known that there would be a Crow buyout in the budget prior to its tabling, I could have communicated to people back in my riding of this matter. It affects the value of land. It affects the transactions between farmers who may have been actually selling their land at that time. It is a very serious matter with millions of dollars at stake.

I am rather shocked and I want to assure this House that my caucus was not made privy to any of the details of the budget in any manner, particularly as it related to situations of cuts that would affect our riding.

I add my concern and ask the Chair to deal in a very severe way with this important matter.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:20 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I will deal very directly with the allegation made by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, supported by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. There was absolutely no question of a budget leak in this case.

There is no evidence that has been adduced by the hon. member to support that, absolutely no evidence.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Read the Hill Times .

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

I have read the Hill Times and I know the hon. member read the Hill Times . The answer that was given has been fully explained in a reply, given in writing, by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington which was read by the chief government whip a few moments ago.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I have listened attentively, as all members have on this issue. A question of privilege is an important matter and a serious matter for all parliamentarians. I would ask that we keep the discussion in the parliamentary fashion that we have thus far, that we might conclude this matter.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, certain hon. members of the opposition were invited to a briefing on the budget well in advance, a briefing that was not provided to government members. I had no idea what was in the budget until I walked into the House and heard the budget being delivered.

That was not the case with certain members of the opposition who were invited to a briefing. That is standard practice and there is no suggestion in the answer that was given by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington as explained in the memorandum that she has tabled here that there was anything but that procedure followed. She has explained that the procedure she was talking about when she answered the question dealt with events long before budget day.

I refer once again to citation 31 of Beauchesne's which has already been quoted. I need not read it again. I want to remind the Chair that when we had a case of a budget leak with the hon. Michael Wilson during the last Parliament, a major leak in which the whole document got out, there was a question of privilege raised and debated for an entire day in this House on that very issue.

There was never anything referred to a committee. The Chair never made a finding that there had been a breach of the privileges of the members of this House, even though there had been a complete leak of the budget. I think the hon. member for Sherbrooke was in the cabinet at that time.

What I am saying is that there is no evidence of any leak here today in respect of the budget. If there were, according to the citation of Beauchesne's and in accordance with the practice followed in respect of Mr. Wilson's major leak, the whole thing went out. In light of the precedent established then, I submit there is nothing that the House should do to take note of this unless the hon. member for Sherbrooke wishes to set down a motion condemning not the member for Guelph-Wellington but the Minister of Finance for allowing any information to get into her hands.

In the face of the denial, I suggest such a motion is not supported by any evidence and it would be a waste of the time of this House, as is the question raised by the hon. member.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Sherbrooke for a final comment, but I wish to apprise the House that I would hold that comment to a minimum amount of time. The Chair does not want to restart the whole debate. I have listened attentively. It is an important, serious matter. It will be dealt with as its seriousness requires.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience. I do not want to rehash past events. For the benefit of all members of the House, let us focus on what is really at issue here. I feel compelled to stress this because there is a very important distinction in the situation we are facing today relative to precedent.

The precedents referred to are on the notion of confidentiality, budget secrecy as applied at large. We are facing a new situation today in which certain members of the House of Commons were informed beforehand according to this bold admission.

Mr. Speaker, that is the evidence you have. May I point out according to precedent that is the prima facie evidence you have before you today. That is the reason I think you will find here a question of privilege.

The parliamentary secretary has hoisted himself on his own petard when he rises in this place to say there is no evidence and then goes on to explain the rebuttal of the evidence that happens to be in front of this House. To make that statement is so gross as to deny that this statement actually exists in a document that was distributed to the public at large.

This is the last point I want to make. Let me read the quotation because it goes directly to the heart of this matter. The member for Guelph-Wellington said: "I do not think so. There were some MPs who were told beforehand if major cuts were coming to programs in their ridings".

The last phrase goes to motive: "They asked for that in caucus so they could prepare to answer questions".

My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois-

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Order. I think the Chair has heard all the arguments from the members who participated.

As I said earlier, I realize that a question of privilege is a serious matter for all parliamentarians. As is customary, the Chair will certainly prefer to wait until the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington is present to hear what she has to say.

The Chair will certainly want to give an opportunity to the member for Guelph-Wellington to express her point of view more before making a definitive ruling.

I want to thank the well experienced hon. member for Sherbrooke for raising this question of privilege and the chief government whip, the member for Berthier-Montcalm, the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and the member for Kingston and the Islands for their participation.

The matter raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, if founded, is more an issue of contempt that a question of privilege. That being said, the Chair will take the matter under advisement, review the hon. member's comments as well as all related parliamentary practice and precedents, and report back to the House as soon as possible.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. government whip kindly offered to table a document that the member for Guelph-Wellington apparently sent to him. I suggest to the House that there be unanimous consent so that document could be now tabled.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is that agreed?

PrivilegeOral Question Period

12:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to certain petitions.