Debates of March 24th, 2003

Mont-Louis Wharf

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the breakwater and the front of the Fisheries and Oceans wharf at Mont-Louis in the Gaspé are in need of major repairs. Access to a properly maintained and safe wharf is essential to the seafood processing plant.

The people of Mont-Louis are waiting for a decision. When does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans plan to announce the timeframe for the wharf upgrade and maintenance plan?

[Georges Farrah, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the small craft harbours program for this year has not yet been announced, but it will be forthcoming quite soon. This is about the time of year that the announcements are made.

Given the importance of this matter, the minister will surely take note of it and will advise us accordingly, in due course.

Canada Pension Plan

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems unbelievable that yet again Canadian seniors are being ripped off by HRDC. First it was the GIS and now it is 20,000 seniors who are being shortchanged on their CPP.

How can the minister justify denying these seniors full retroactivity? Why is her department not preventing this problem from happening in the first place?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that all who are qualified receive the Canada pension benefits to which they are eligible.

The facts are these. Every single year we mail old age security and Canada pension plan applications to people who are turning 64 so they can apply for benefits. The fact is that every year we send information on our pension programs with CPP and OAS T4 statements to 4.5 million Canadians.

Every year we distribute some 250,000 brochures and fact sheets across Canada at various seniors events and through our human resources centres.

I would like to thank all the members of Parliament who, on a regular basis, speak with their constituents to provide them with important information.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast on March 17 regarding his claim that the President of the Treasury Board misled the House concerning the use of the expression “major crown project” in relation to the Canadian firearms program.

I would like to thank the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. President of the Treasury Board, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville for their comments. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville for the documentation he supplied to the Chair.

In his presentation, the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast alleged that the President of the Treasury Board had misled the House in a reply made to an oral question on February 25, 2003. In response to a question posed by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville, the hon. President of the Treasury Board stated:

Mr. Speaker, according to my information the program was not formally designated as a major crown project.

I urge hon. members to read the Debates for February 25, 2003 at page 3985 to see this answer in print.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast contrasted that statement with statements made in the Auditor General’s letter of February 26, 2003 to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has kindly provided the Chair with a copy of that letter and I have noted with great interest the references there to various documents of the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board where the term “major Crown project” has been used with reference to the Canadian Firearms Program.

In the letter, the Auditor General outlines a number of occasions, beginning in 1998, in which formal documents concerning project approval that were passed between the justice department and the Treasury Board Secretariat either describe the program as a major crown project or indicate that it will be managed as such. Moreover, the letter points out that in response to documents submitted for comment by her office to the justice department and the Treasury Board Secretariat during 2002, no exception was taken to the use of the expression “major crown project”. On one occasion, in fact, the Treasury Board Secretariat requested that the expression “major capital project” be altered to read “major crown project”. It was only last month, in February 2003, that the justice department began to object to the use of the expression “major crown project” to designate the Canadian firearms program.

The hon. President of the Treasury Board responded to the charge made by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast by stating that in her reply to the original question she was pointing out to the House that the program had never been formally designated as a major Crown project.

She went on to explain that such formal designation would have involved a decision of the ministers who comprise the Treasury Board, adding, in the Debates , on March 17, 2003:

To my knowledge, after an examination by my senior officials of all Treasury Board records and decisions, there has never been a written decision by Treasury Board formally designating this project as a major Crown project.

On examining the statements made here in the House and the additional information submitted to me, it seems to your Speaker that the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board Secretariat were prepared to regard the firearms program as a major crown project, or at least, were prepared to agree that it should be managed as though it were such a project. The House is now informed that such a designation was never formally made by the Treasury Board and that it is therefore incorrect to apply it to the firearms program.

As the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader pointed out, the decision to designate or not to designate a program as a major crown project is a prerogative of the government. Based on that decision, the government may require a different level or a different type of management structure and may impose reporting requirements that do not apply in other cases. All of these are matters that are internal to the government's administration. They are not matters of privilege. The House may choose to exercise its right of oversight of government activities to pursue these matters, but that does not require intervention by the Chair.

These are no doubt critical questions for hon. members and for the House, but they are not questions for your Speaker to resolve. Just as it is not up to the Chair to settle the dispute surrounding the issue of the proper designation of the firearms program, it is not the role of your Speaker to determine the consequences for good or ill of its designation. Rather, as Speaker, I am being asked to ensure that the privileges of the House have not been breached. In the circumstances of this case, the only argument for such a breach is the allegation that the President of the Treasury Board deliberately misled the House.

The hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast cited a precedent where prima facie privilege was found in a case where a minister made a statement at one time and a different assertion on another occasion, but the precedent is not helpful in this case because there has been no inconsistency in the statements of the President of the Treasury Board. She has not said one thing at one time and something different at another time; she has been clear, stating only that the Treasury Board did not formally designate the Canadian firearms program as a major crown project. The Chair has not been presented with any evidence to indicate that that statement is incorrect. Others may have had differing views on whether or not this was the program designation, but their views are irrelevant to the narrow question of privilege that is before the Chair. On that question, I have concluded that the House has not been misled by the President of the Treasury Board and there is therefore no breach of the privileges of the House.

Committees of the House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in both official languages, regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. If the House gives its consent, I move that the 23rd report be concurred in.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

moved:

That the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights presented on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has commenced its study of Bill C-250, a bill to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda provisions), to include sexual orientation. The committee has unanimously adopted a motion asking the House to give it an additional 30 sitting days within which to consider evidence on the bill.

The purpose of the concurrence motion today is simply to implement that all party recommendation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to give us the additional 30 sitting days in order to hear evidence on this important legislation.

[The Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the government House leader apparently is now willing to grant consent to the following motion. I therefore seek unanimous consent that, in the opinion of this House, the government should endorse the formation of an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of prosecuting Saddam Hussein and all other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, including unlawful use of force, crimes committed in contravention of the Geneva convention and the crime of genocide.

I seek unanimous consent of the House to concur in this motion.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Calgary Southeast have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

On a point of order, the hon. government House leader.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker. In fact I did indicate to the hon. member on Friday that if he did have such a request, he should make it on Tuesday through his House leader, through the regular channel. That is exactly what I said on Friday and what I repeated in question period today. What he just said a moment ago, that I had apparently changed my mind to consider his motion, is factually incorrect again.

[The Speaker]

There is no consent.

Petitions

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke I am presenting a petition from the people of Arnprior, Glasgow Station and Deep River requesting that Parliament recognize that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to training Canadians for emergency situations, that the facility should stay in Arnprior and that the government should upgrade the facility in order to provide the necessary training to Canadians.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

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

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 129, 134, 135, 137, 138, 145 and 150 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed that the lengthy list of questions read out by the hon. parliamentary secretary be made orders for return?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 129

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

For the fiscal years 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, from all departments and agencies of the government, including crown corporations and quasi/non-governmental agencies funded by the government, and not including research and student-related grants and loans, what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded in the constituency of Edmonton—Strathcona, including the name and address of the recipient, whether or not it was competitively awarded, the date, the amount and the type of funding, and if repayable, whether or not it has been repaid?

Return tabled.