Debates of Sept. 27th, 2000

Privilege

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few comments to what has already been said by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst and by other members who have intervened.

I urge the Chair to take this question very seriously. It may be, as the government House leader argued, that the former judgment by the Chair with respect to the premature release of committee reports is not identical to what we are protesting here, but it is all in the same vein. It all shows a similar contempt for the House of Commons.

All these things, whether they are committee reports that are released before they are tabled in the House, or government legislation that is leaked to the media before it is tabled in the House, or anything in the same vein, it all erodes the ability of members of the House individually and collectively to do their jobs. Mr. Speaker, you should regard it in the same spirit in which you regarded the release of committee reports before they were tabled in the House.

The government House leader says he feels badly, and I believe him, but some responsibility has to be taken somewhere. That is the point. If nobody on the government side is to take responsibility then it is up to the Chair to assign responsibility for this, because clearly somebody somewhere in the Department of Human Resources Development gave it to the media. I do not think anyone could claim anything else. This is what happened.

I would make the argument that this is a parliamentary democracy. We have responsible government. The buck stops somewhere, and in this case the buck does not stop with the government House leader. I believe he was a victim of the Machiavellian machinations of his own colleagues in this case.

The fact is that somebody has to take responsibility, and in my judgment it is the Minister of Human Resources Development who should be held responsible. It is her department. She should be in here explaining what happened and why heads are rolling or why she is resigning or whatever the case may be. It is her department or her ministry that has demonstrated this kind of contempt for parliament through the deliberate leak, unless somebody wants to get up and actually ask us to believe this was somehow an accident. We are asked to believe an awful lot of things around here, but that would be a big one.

The fact of the matter is that this is a deliberate strategy on the part of government members time after time after time, so that they get the lead on the story, so that their spin, so to speak, on the story is out there before other members of parliament and other parties get to comment.

It may be something they can sit in the back room and grin about, saying “Aren't we smart? Didn't we outsmart the opposition that time? Didn't we slip one by them? Didn't we get them one more time?” Every one of those little strategies and tactics is another nail in the coffin of parliamentary democracy, one more time eroding the power of the House of Commons, one more time eroding the perception by Canadians that this is the place where information is revealed.

This is the place where public policy is announced, not in the back rooms where somebody slips somebody from the media a brown envelope, or across the way in the press gallery, or wherever it is of the many places. Sometimes from hundreds of miles away ministers of the crown decide to make public policy announcements. All of this tends toward the deterioration in the public mind of the importance of parliament.

I would urge you to do whatever is in your power, Mr. Speaker, to chastise, assign responsibility, refer it to a committee, or whatever you see within your power to do, because someone has to do something about it. We are doing what we can on the floor by appealing to you.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this question of privilege. I would very much attach my comments to those of the previous speakers on this side of the House, particularly the last speaker who you know and all members know has a long history in this institution.

He pointed out very clearly that an attempt has to be made by the Chair and all members to stop the practice of floating trial balloons prior to the proper tabling of legislation in the House. There is a long record of this occurring. In the short time I have been in this place we have seen it happen time and time again.

I would suggest as well there is very much an elevated sense of anticipation of a possible election, which adds to the political climate and the timeliness of having this information out there earlier. As the whip for the New Democratic Party has pointed out, he made direct appeals to the government, and rightfully so, to have an opportunity to review the legislation as the critic in this regard, as did members of our party. We were denied.

Again I would suggest it is cold comfort to have the outrage and the feigned indignation of the government House leader standing here and saying “It is a terrible thing. I do not know how it happened. We are very upset about it on this side of the House too, but c'est la vie”.

I ask the Chair to keep in mind that in this instance there is a very important factor. The evidence is not in. This matter should not be decided today by you, Mr. Speaker. There was a time, and the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona will certainly recall, when it was very clear that if a leak such as this occurred there would be direct ministerial accountability, which adds to the democracy in this place, which adds to accountability and responsibility on the part of government. That seems to no longer exist under this administration.

There is but one source from which this information could have been leaked, and that is the government that drafted the legislation. Obviously there has to be some form of accountability on the part of the department, on the part of the government, and on the part of the government House leader.

The evidence is not in. We do not know the source of the leak. Yet we do not even hear the slightest indication from the government that it is willing to even make inquiries. Has there been an inquiry? Have the police been involved in how this information was leaked?

This type of information is of equal importance to a budget leak. I would suggest we cannot diminish the importance of what has just happened in this place. Again I marry myself to the remarks that have been made by other members of the opposition. It is incumbent upon the Chair to enforce some semblance of accountability when this type of information winds up in the hands of the media prior to the people who have been democratically elected having an opportunity to review this type of important legislation.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with due diligence in this matter, not to react quickly to the request and the question of privilege that has been raised, and to make inquiries on what type of investigation has been made to discover the source of the leak.

This cannot continue. As has been pointed out, it continually diminishes and completely casts a pall over the importance of this place and the government if information is to be allowed to be leaked out in an unfettered way prior to any kind of examination in the House of Commons. I know you will proceed with this charge very diligently, and I would urge you to do so post-haste.

[The Speaker]

Members will recall that this issue was raised a number of time in the last session of parliament. As I recall, one of the members of the then Reform Party, now Canadian Alliance, admitted in the House that he did it to test the rules, and we had a debate here.

I have heard from the House leaders on the particular matter and I have been urged to take it seriously. I do. I had hoped that after we had the last discussion on this matter that we as parliamentarians would be able to keep our own house in order.

I direct my question to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. Is the hon. member alleging that the Minister of Human Resources Development leaked this paper herself? Is that what the hon. member is alleging?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Yes, yes.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst can speak for himself. I was addressing him.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can speak for myself.

The answer is yes. In the present context, in today's context of uncertainty as to whether there will be an election or not, our battle against employment insurance and my travels across the country have led to a bill that will change the rules of employment insurance.

As a member of parliament, I personally requested a copy of the bill. I respect the government's decision that I cannot have one, but then I turn around and find the media discussing it. I say yes, the minister was aware.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member's response is yes. He said that the minister is responsible for leaking this information to the media.

The very least we can do is this. We have an allegation specifically against a minister, and I would like to hear what the minister has to say about the particular point. When she is in the House and I am here, I will direct that. Until I hear from her, I will hold in abeyance whatever decision I might be taking. I will let it sit right there. I think I have heard enough.

I trust hon. members are taking this seriously.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please.

I will let this sit until a bit later. We will take our time and get to the bottom of it. I will listen to another question of privilege from the hon. member for Winnipeg South.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to speak to this matter. I am speaking to a matter of privilege raised by the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.

I realize it is somewhat unusual to be speaking this long after the original point was raised, but I am deeply interested in the matter. In a way it relates to some of the discussions that just took place on the previous matter of privilege.

I will not go through the history of it as that has already been put on record and the government has had a chance to speak to it, but I want to raise what I believe is one of those generic, organic understandings we have of what our democracy is all about.

Eugene Forsey, when he was called upon to describe it for the new online system here, talked about a responsible government with a cabinet responsible to the House of Commons and a House of Commons responsible to the people. That is how we describe it too. That is what we teach children in school. That is how we understand it to be, that this is the place where citizen's rights are acted out.

I will contrast that with a comment contained within a report commissioned by the Privy Council Office that describes the Canadian House of Parliament as weak in most of its roles because of special Canadian factors that make the Canadian parliament especially weak, even in comparison with other parliaments based on the British Westminster parliamentary cabinet model.

I reference it in that way because for me one of the things that allows us to play our role as representatives of citizens and that allows citizens to hold their government responsible to them is their ability to access accurate information about the operations of government. It seems to be a very fundamental issue.

We rely upon an impartial public service to serve the members of the House equitably and to provide information to them that is, dare I say, policy neutral, not designed to spin or shape the attitudes of members but to give them the facts upon which we can come to a decision.

The member has brought forward information relating to a private member's bill. It is information that related to this side of the House because it was information that was supplied to members on this side of the House about why they should not vote in favour of his particular bill.

There are two specific points. In that information and in a document supplied to cabinet someone within the public service wrote that the privy commissioner believes Bill C-206 is a serious threat to the privacy of Canadians. The member, being somewhat surprised at this, wrote to the privacy commissioner and asked: “Is serious threat to privacy an evaluation that can be directly attributed to you?”. The privacy commissioner wrote back and said “No, neither my staff nor I have ever used that term”.

We have information supplied to cabinet and information supplied to members of the House because the same allegation is made in the documentation provided to members of House. It would seem to be at odds with the very person it is attributed to.

This is a chamber for debate and we are debating all the time. The information used in debates may be called into question by any one of us at any point in time, but there is a different bar to which I believe the public service needs to be held. It is incumbent upon them to supply us with information that is not just kind of accurate but that fairly represents the situation with which they are confronted or to which they are asked to respond.

The second point is that they also reference in this information a comment by the privacy commissioner in his annual report because he did have concerns about the bill. While they highlight that, what is interesting is that they forget to highlight that he had concerns about several government bills that were passed by the House and received royal assent.

What we have seen over the years is an erosion of the rights of members of the House. They are not our rights. They are the rights of Canadian citizens that we exercise on their behalf.

I have just a final point. In this documentation and in other things that have been written about access to information and privacy legislation there is the indication that the government has a process for this right now that it is being conducted by the public service in house. I think that is wrong. The review and the design of that legislation should be such that it is done by an all cabinet committee and in public. It is wrong to do that in the privacy of back offices because it relates to reference of the rules that we play by here.

I urge you to look at this issue very carefully, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you will. I urge you to take it one step beyond the narrow focus you would put on the interpretation of the points raised by the member and to look at the position that every member of the House is in when we try to carry out the functions we are here to carry out, which is to hold the government to account.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Winnipeg South on this important issue. I have a couple of points that I would ask the Chair to consider. One is that public servants are asked on behalf of ministers to make judgments often. They prepare briefing books and they make judgment calls all the time. I do not find that unusual.

What I do agree with is the observation of the member for Winnipeg South that the powers of individual parliamentarians and the respect that parliamentarians are held in are continually eroded. The erosion of these rights is ongoing.

The hon. member should take this up with his caucus. The Liberal Party has been in control of this place for the last seven years. I agree there has been a steadily ongoing erosion of the rights and privileges of members of parliament, the esteem that the public would hold us in, and the things that Canadians expect of us. All those things have been eroded. To bring it forth here is good, I appreciate it, but he should also take it up with the Liberal caucus which has been in charge while all this has been happening.

Lastly I would wonder if the member for Winnipeg South would table the documents from which he quoted. He read snippets from them which I thought were interesting. Perhaps if he could table those documents it would help all of us to make an evaluation. It would help you, Mr. Speaker, and it would help all parliamentarians to make an evaluation of whether or not it truly was a question of privilege. We would like to see all the documents to get that information.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that the pertinent documents had been tabled at the time I made the original interventions, with the exception of one additional document, a letter from the privacy commissioner to me that I would like to submit to you for your consideration.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. member have consent of the House to submit this document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

I have heard all of the argument on this question of privilege. I will now take all the information under advisement and will come back to the House if necessary.

Government Response To Petitions

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary 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 two petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the most recent report of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group.

This is a report of a visit made by members of the House to Taiwan earlier this summer. It was a visit which involved urban and rural parts of Taiwan. It was a visit which followed their recent, most successful, highly democratic elections that resulted in the first change in the governing party in that country's history.

Speaking on behalf of members of parliament, we want to thank the people of Taiwan and the Government of Taiwan and wish the new government the very best in its mandate.

Canada Labour Code

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-498, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing a bill I consider entirely original, since it concerns a practice that has been in effect in Quebec for a number of years.

The aim of this bill is to ensure that pregnant or nursing women employed in the federal government, therefore under our jurisdiction here in the House, are afforded proper protection similar to the unique precautionary cessation of work practice we have already in Quebec.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-499, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (prohibited provision in a collective agreement).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this second bill, which will prohibit the use of the so-called orphan clauses in the various collective agreements under federal jurisdiction.

These clauses cause discrimination between those newly arrived on the labour market, especially young people, and those already there.

My bill will put an end to these injustices, and accordingly people hired after or before a given date will enjoy the same salary and benefits as those already working.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

moved that Bill S-5, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate), be read the first time.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area on behalf of the 300,000 Canadian children, adults and seniors with epilepsy in their families.

They point out that Canada's participation in the World Health Organization's global campaign is helping to bring epilepsy out of the shadows. They also point out that epilepsy is the most common brain disorder in every country of the world including Canada. It is also the most neglected.

It is seldom publicly discussed and epilepsy remains surrounded by myths. The petitioners call upon parliament to help launch a national campaign to raise public awareness of epilepsy and first aid procedures.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is also from citizens of the Peterborough area on behalf of those with terminal kidney disease. The petition was developed by Ken Sharp of Peterborough.

The petitioners point out that those on kidney dialysis and those successfully transplanted recognize the importance of the bioartificial kidney as a technique which potentially will help all those with kidney disease in the future.

The petitioners call upon parliament to work and support research toward the bioartificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis and transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present, on behalf of over 400 constituents in my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry and on behalf of the Comité ZIP Haut-Saint-Laurent, which is under the leadership of Marthe Théoret and Claire Lachance, a petition to the effect that the release from the PCB incinerator in Cornwall is a threat to property owners along Lake Saint-François and therefore to the St. Lawrence Seaway, because of the prevailing winds blowing toward the south shore of the river in Quebec.

The petitioners are asking parliament to take all necessary measures to have the federal Department of the Environment conduct an environmental evaluation of the project and restore funding for the Saint-Anicet weather station so that pollutants that may be released from the Cornwall incinerator can be measured.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the Kamloops region of British Columbia.

The petitioners have a long preamble to their petition. They are calling upon parliament to stop for profit hospitals and restore federal funding for health care, to increase the federal government's share of health care funding to 25% immediately and to implement a national home care program and a national program for prescription drugs.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by petitioners from a number of communities in central British Columbia pointing out the benefits of a national highway system.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to use some of the money collected from gasoline taxes to build, maintain and improve Canada's highway network.