Joe Clark

[Points of order, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not rising to clarify or elaborate on my question of earlier today.

I had the opportunity this morning to attend at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, where the bill under consideration would alter the rights of Canada's first nations and the relationship with the Crown. It was an interesting meeting that ended rather abruptly.

Mr. Speaker, the transcript from the committee is not yet available to me but I want to reserve my right to raise both a question of privilege and a point of order with the Speaker when the records of the committee do become available.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of discussion. This is a question of what the Supreme Court of Canada, in an opinion sought by this government, calls a “binding obligation”. The resolution adopted yesterday by the House of Assembly refers specifically to “the establishment, through an amendment of the Terms of Union, of shared, equal, constitutional authority...over the fisheries adjacent to the province”.

Will the Government of Canada honour its binding obligation to negotiate or will it ignore the opinion of the Supreme Court?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador has adopted unanimously a resolution directing its government to begin a renegotiation of the terms of union.

In its “Reference re Secession of Quebec” in 1988, a court opinion sought by the Prime Minister, the Supreme Court said when “one participant in Confederation... seek[s] an amendment to the Constitution” there is “an obligation on all parties to come to the negotiating table”. The court calls that a “binding obligation”.

Does the Government of Canada consider itself bound to negotiate when a province seeks an amendment to the Constitution?

[Motions for Papers, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the request of the government my usual careful attention.

[Points of Order, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on April 29, in answer to a question that I placed in the House, the Minister of Health said, “what the right hon. member just outlined is a fabrication”. She went on to say, “It is a web of halftruths and misrepresentation”. I refrain myself from quoting that part of her remarks.

The admissibility of that language was raised on a point of order by my colleague, the member for St. John's West. The Speaker's immediate reaction was to say, “I did not think anything she said transgressed the rules”.

On April 30 I asked the Speaker if he had come to a ruling on the question. Let me quote part of Mr. Speaker's ruling:

The following expressions are a partial listing of expressions which have caused intervention on the part of the Chair as listed in the Index of the Debates between 1976 and 1987, and “fabrication” is one of them. It caused interventions, but it was not ruled out of order. The word also occurs in another list, where it has been ruled unparliamentary....

The Speaker went on to state:

--because of the inconsistency in the use of these expressions... I did not think it necessary to intervene.

The Speaker went on to state:

--the hon. member may take some offence at the language, and we all do sometimes at things that are said in the House, there is not clear authority for the Chair to say that this word or that word is unparliamentary....

The Speaker concluded by saying:

--I am not inclined at this stage to rule the expression unparliamentary and demand that there be a withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, that was your ruling on the word “fabrication”. I assume the same logic would apply to the words “fabricating the facts”. If the Speaker would prefer, I could rephrase what I said to say that what the minister just outlined is a fabrication.

[Points of Order, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I try always to follow the instructions of the Chair, and since you have determined that the language that I used was unparliamentary, I will withdraw it. However I would appreciate the opportunity to explore with you and the House, on a point of order, what appears to me to be a certain inconsistency with respect to the word in question.

[Auberge Grand-Mère, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me withdraw that remark and say that the minister is fabricating facts to suit himself.

The Prime Minister claims he received $40,000 in 1997 as partial payment for the alleged sale of his golf club shares. The RCMP inspected the books of the Prime Minister's private company and found no record of that payment, but a senior official in the Prime Minister's Office phoned the National Post to say the money in question did come in.

If the money went to the Prime Minister's private company, why could the RCMP find no record?

[Auberge Grand-Mère, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is not telling the truth.

[Auberge Grand-Mère, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government insists that there have been no new developments in the Auberge Grand-Mère case. In fact, court proceedings have revealed that critical information is missing from the Auberge Grand-Mère file. That is new.

It is evident that the government is stonewalling Parliament, but has there been an internal investigation to determine why key documents are missing from the Auberge Grand-Mère file? Do documents disappear routinely from BDC files or does this only happen when the Prime Minister is involved?

[Auberge Grand-Mère, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the professional mouthpiece.

The cross-examination by the National Post has revealed new evidence in the Shawinigate matter. It talks about pages of files that have been lost and about electronic records that have disappeared. The RCMP search warrant application for leaked documents omitted France Bergeron's signed testimony that the only reason the loan was granted was because the Prime Minister intervened.

The Solicitor General does not need a mouthpiece. He can answer for the RCMP himself. Will he tell the House why the RCMP kept the most relevant part of Ms. Bergeron's statement out of the warrant application?