Debates of Feb. 20th, 2002

Health

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is $900 million left in the hepatitis C compensation fund.

The former minister was clearly mistaken. It is not the end of public health care and there is plenty of money for all of the victims.

Why will the minister not commit to extend compensation to the hepatitis C victims of tainted blood?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Because, Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is clear, it continues to be clear, and we will implement that policy.

The Homeless

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the homeless has a problem. She has taken so long in announcing funding that certain organizations will not be able to spend the funding received within the time limit set. If they are not able to meet the deadline, these funds are likely to end up back in the government's consolidated fund.

Can the minister make a commitment to move the March 31, 2003, deadline forward so that these organizations involved in helping the homeless may receive and use their full amounts of funding?

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, a number of organizations have shared with me their concerns about the date. I would like to announce today that I have addressed this, in conjunction with the staff of my department, and the deadline will now be September 2004.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Pretty soon 10 years will have passed since the Westray coal mine disaster, which many regard not only as a tragedy but a criminal event. Yet 10 years down the road we still have no legislation dealing with criminal responsibility in these kinds of situations.

The Minister of Justice will be aware that yesterday the subject matter of a private member's bill by the member for Churchill was referred to the justice committee. I want to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will commit now to working with the committee to make sure that by the expiry of this year in which we have the tenth anniversary of that disaster we have legislation dealing with the--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I know of the matter and of course I will be working with the committee. I want to hear from stakeholders, from people all across the country, in order to see what we are going to have to do. Therefore, I do understand that the matter is under study and I will fully co-operate with the committee.

Privilege

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the chief government whip with contempt of the House for intimidation and harassment of our members through a staff member of the official opposition whip.

While it troubles me to bring this issue forward, I feel I must do so in order to protect the right of members and their staff to work in an environment free from the threat of intimidation.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Talk to Mr. Kinsella. He's threatening your guys. I am talking about here.

The question of privilege is resulting from an incident involving yesterday's election of the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. The first vote for the chair of the committee was nullified because of a counting error by the committee clerk. Before the second vote was taken, the chief government whip approached our whip's staffer and uttered the following “We phoned R.J. and told him who we wanted. If one of your guys doesn't vote for Sue there will be consequences”.

This sort of goonish misconduct displayed by the chief government whip cannot be tolerated in any venue, let alone the Parliament of Canada. Page 84 of Marleau and Montpetit states:

Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.

On September 19, 1973, Otto Jelinek, the member for High Park--Humber Valley, rose on a question of privilege claiming that an employee of the CBC, in telephone conversations with the member, had advised Mr. Jelinek to stop asking questions about television coverage of the Olympic games during question period or else it would be alleged that the member had a contract with CTV and it was a conflict of interest. Mr. Jelinek claimed it was an attempt to intimidate him. As the member did not know the name of the caller no specific charge could be made and therefore there was no prima facie question of privilege. While there was no prima facie case of privilege, Speaker Lamoureux had, and I quote him:

...no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.

While the chief government whip may feel free to threaten and co-opt government members in such a way, I will not accept her threatening opposition members or their staff in such a way. This staffer works on behalf of the official opposition whip and performs valuable functions that could affect the votable status of opposition members. This intimidation occurred while our staffer was attempting to perform a parliamentary function on behalf of the opposition whip.

Parliament must send a clear message to all members by using its powers to condemn such conduct and call it contempt like it is.

Mr. Speaker, should you rule that there exists a prima facie question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add a word in support of the suggestion before the House today.

I too was involved in the finance committee yesterday. At one stage before the committee meeting started, when there were going to be two candidates for the chairmanship of that committee, the member for Etobicoke North and the member for London West, I was called out by one of the staff of the chief government whip to see the chief government whip, at which time she asked me how I was voting. I told her I would be supporting the member for Etobicoke North. She told me that was not the government's choice, that the government's choice was the member for London West. I implied I had made up my mind to support the member for Etobicoke North. She said to me at that time “if that happens and if he wins the chairmanship, I may have to remove him from the finance committee”. I think that is a heavy handed approach to be used by a government whip.

Also, during a recess at committee one of the parliamentary secretaries was at the committee and the parliamentary secretary spoke to the chief government whip, came in from speaking to the chief government whip and was talking to some Liberal members from the government side of the House. Two of those Liberal members, or two of those government members, said to me that the parliamentary secretary had the whip say to her or imply to her that if she did not vote the right way, she needed to worry about her parliamentary secretaryship.This is what I heard from two government members of the finance committee.

There was also a great deal of confusion at the committee. I am led to believe that committees should be masters of their own destiny. That certainly was not the case. The chief government whip was also a member of the committee at that time, the only time she has ever been a member of the finance committee.

I think for these reasons and others, and I could go on at length, I support the suggestion put forth today in the House by the Leader of the Opposition.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this point.

Yesterday at the same finance committee meeting the chief government whip asked me to join her outside, at which point she informed me that I should be voting for the hon. member for London West, at which point I informed her that she was not my whip and that I was supporting the member for Etobicoke North.

Clearly for the whip of the government to be trying to run roughshod over the rights of opposition members of parliament is offensive and steps all over the basic notion of the independence of committees as a cornerstone of the parliamentary system.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the government became aware a few minutes ago just before the end of question period that the Leader of the Opposition intended to raise this point. It is a point upon which we will want to reflect, having just heard what various members of the opposition have said, but let me just say that we would like to take some time to consider what has been said here.

In listening very carefully, I heard a number of allegations. I heard the transmission of hearsay evidence. I heard reflection upon the proceedings in the committee, but I did not hear a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like is an opportunity to examine all of the allegations that have been made and ask that you would return to this matter at a later time after we have had a chance to reflect upon it.

[The Speaker]

Yes, I would be glad to take the matter under advisement and give the hon. government House leader a little time to reflect and come back to the House with a statement on the matter.

Obviously there have been some interesting discussions going on here and there involving the Standing Committee on Finance to which of course the Chair has not been privy. I will be interested to hear the comments from the hon. government House leader a little later and perhaps then take the matter under further advisement and give a decision to the House.

Does the hon. chief government whip wish to speak to this matter at this moment?

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege, I regret very much that the leader of the official opposition chose not to inform me personally and directly that he would be raising this issue.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the criticisms and I would appreciate the same respect.

I regret that the leader of the official opposition chose not to inform me directly and personally of the point he would be raising and of the points he would be making in raising it. I respect totally the role of the House and of each member of parliament, and your role, Mr. Speaker, and certainly that of any of the House officers, who have very difficult responsibilities in the House.

Out of respect I would like to give a response to the issues that have been raised, if that is your decision.

Not knowing ahead of time what would be raised, not having had the opportunity or chance to speak to any of the members who have raised these issues, I really would appreciate the opportunity to prepare and respond at a later date.

I would like to, however, categorically deny the quote attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition.

[The Speaker]

We will put the matter to rest for the time being and the hon. member will come back to the House with the government House leader and we will hear further.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade departmental briefing that took place on February 19 at 5 p.m. with industry officials and separately with the media concerning discussions about the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. As a member of parliament I was excluded from the meeting and told the briefing of members of parliament would have to wait until February 20.

In order to discharge my responsibilities as an opposition member of parliament and our party's critic for international trade I must be made aware of information concerning issues such as the softwood lumber dispute in a timely manner. The dispute has been the subject of an emergency debate in parliament as well as the topic of numerous discussions in committees of both houses of parliament.

Yesterday's briefing was the subject of numerous questions in question period. Surely the questions should be responded to in parliament prior to being made available to the media. Any resolution to the debate will undoubtedly lead to an agreement subject to parliamentary scrutiny and possibly some form of parliamentary approval. The department deliberately did an end run around parliament by briefing members of the media prior to members of parliament.

I will quote the response of former Speaker Parent to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley on October 29, 1997, concerning a government news release announcing the membership of the nominating committee for the proposed Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. He said:

This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices.

Speaker Parent said members should be briefed on any progress toward settlement of disputes that may need parliamentary ratification prior to being released to the media. Anything less is contempt of parliament.

This is part of a continuing pattern coming from the government. The media gets favourable treatment compared to members of parliament from all parties.

Mr. Speaker, should you rule that there exists a prima facie question of privilege I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as with the previous question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition, this is the first I have heard of it. I would be happy to inquire into the matter to see what the flow of events was and take into account the remarks made by the member for Vancouver Island North. I hope you might invite further comments on the subject at a later stage, perhaps tomorrow or the day after, so the item could be properly pursued.

[The Speaker]

I do not think there is any need to hear further comment on the matter. The Chair is quite prepared to dispose of it now. In my view there is no breach of privilege in this case. The two hon. members can certainly converse and exchange information about what has happened in this case.

There have been cases on which I have already made decisions with respect to matters that come before the House which, by their nature, are confidential until presented to the House. Where the information contained in the documentation is released beforehand to some other people outside the House there may be a breach of the privileges of the House.

However in the case the hon. members have brought before us today this appears to be a relatively normal briefing or update on what is going on in negotiations here and there in which the Government of Canada may or may not be engaged. It seems to me it is certainly not a breach of the privileges of the House for the government, or anyone else who may be in any way connected with the House, to have briefings with other people on that kind of material.

Accordingly I am not prepared to find in this case that there has been a question of privilege. I urge the hon. members to exchange the information they have indicated they wish to exchange, but beyond that I do not think it needs to come back to the House.

We have another question of privilege. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader wanted to say something about a question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Delta--South Richmond.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member raised a question of privilege concerning an article written by the legal counsel to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

Mr. Speaker, you indicated at the time that it was your first inclination that the committee should deal with the issue and then perhaps come back to the House if need be. I urge upon you that view, Mr. Speaker. It makes sense to me. It would be the appropriate approach.

Having had an opportunity to review the article it seems to me the counsel was not so much defending the government or one side or the other but was defending the committee itself. On the other hand, perhaps the counsel did not have the authority of the committee to do that.

I submit that for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will reply to your questions from yesterday.

My argument and that of other opposition members on the committee was that the scrutiny of regulations committee had made a finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations were illegal. I argued that the committee and the department of fisheries had engaged in inexcusable delays in acting on the finding and that after five years the only remaining issue to be decided was the date of the tabling of the disallowance report. Of late the committee has been taking about twice as long as in the past to table its disallowance reports.

It was argued in committee that the honour of the crown is at stake when fishermen are prosecuted under admittedly illegal regulations and when the committee dithers not about the illegality of the regulations but about when they should be revoked.

Mr. Bernier has taken a contrary position. He says the committee is highly effective in carrying out its responsibilities. He says its handling of the aboriginal communal fishing licences regulations has been in order. That of course is the position of the government majority on the committee.

Mr. Bernier claims to be merely setting the record straight or correcting errors in the public record. If Mr. Bernier were correct I would not only not have a question of privilege. I and other members of the opposition would have no issue with either the committee's handling of its 1997 finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations were illegal or the timing of the tabling of the disallowance report.

Mr. Bernier's claim that the committee is working effectively and efficiently with regard to the fishing regulations goes to the very heart of the argument before the committee and in a February 11 Hill Times story entitled “Opposition parties say regulatory feet-dragging hurting fishing industry”.

Mr. Speaker, you asked if Mr. Bernier was merely correcting errors in the public record as contained in the regulatory foot dragging story, a story which chronicles government foot dragging and blocking of action in the scrutiny of regulations committee to prevent tabling of a disallowance report on the illegal fishing regulations. The answer is an emphatic no. Mr. Bernier does not correct errors.

I will be specific. Mr. Bernier wrote that the committee did not first look at the issue in January 1997. He said it did not do so until November 1997. The fact is, the committee's general counsel was directed to review the fishing regulations on January 3, 1997. The general counsel's legal analysis that the regulations were illegal was dated March 20, 1997. What did occur in November 1997 was that the committee adopted the position that the regulations were illegal and decided to advise the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of its finding.

Mr. Bernier then goes on to other dates where he disagrees with my position in committee and the regulatory foot dragging--

[The Speaker]

With great respect, while no doubt the submissions the hon. member is making are relevant to the committee and it only confirms the view I expressed yesterday having heard the arguments he and other hon. members presented to the House, this matter ought to be raised in the committee.

This is a question dealing with the work of the committee. The person the hon. member is complaining about is engaged to work with the committee and not with the House. He is not even an employee of the House. He is an employee of the Library of Parliament and accordingly I can only say to the hon. member that in my view this matter should be dealt with in the committee.

If for some reason the committee's resolution of the matter is unsatisfactory the hon. member can always come back to the House and try again, but in my view this is a committee matter. Everything he is saying is material that the committee should be hearing and considering whether or not its privileges in any way were damaged by its employee, if we like, writing a letter to the Hill Times setting out the facts that it did.

I note that the committee is a joint committee of both the Senate and the House. It is well equipped to deal with this matter. I urge the hon. member to take the matter up with the committee to see what happens there. It seems to me that if the committee finds that there has been a breach of its privileges it can make a report to the House saying so and the House is free to act on the report.

However until it receives a report from the committee it seems to me to be premature for the Speaker to intervene in a matter that really is a matter for the committee. If it does not find a breach of privilege how is the House likely to react to that? It can always report to the House and a decision can be made here later, but I would urge him to take the matter up there and I think that is the appropriate venue.

Government Response to Petitions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the 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 several petitions.