Joe Clark

[Points of Order, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention to a change in Hansard which I think is material and perhaps ominous.

Yesterday the government House leader replied to a question of privilege that I had raised. He admitted the government had failed in its duty to table certain orders in council under Standing Order 110(1).

I heard him distinctly when he attributed the mistake to “une erreur administrative”. I believe other members listening on translation would have heard the words translated as “administrative error”.

The French edition of yesterday's Hansard contains no reference to the words “une erreur administrative”. In the official record of our debates there is no explanation for the failure of the government to respect the formal instructions of this House. It is the same in English.

The English version of Hansard contains no reference to an administrative error.

Two things concern me about this. First, it appears that someone has intervened with Hansard to change materially the record of what was said in the House. This is not a grammatical change. It was material. It related to the reason the government gave for not following the rules.

In the words that were spoken the failure was attributed to “une erreur administrative”. In the record, which is what will be consulted, no explanation was given.

That leads to the second reason this concerns me. The practices of the House require us to accept the word of other members. When the government House leader said this was “une erreur administrative”, I accepted that explanation. Now that explanation has disappeared. Why did it disappear? Was this another administrative error, or was the language withdrawn deliberately because it was either incomplete or inaccurate? Was there some other reason why the order of Parliament was ignored?

I had asked that the Speaker consider finding the government in contempt in any event because it had broken a clear obligation. The Speaker decided instead to order that the period be extended in which those orders in council can be considered by a committee.

It is hazardous to try to read the mind of Mr. Speaker, but I had quietly assumed that his decision was affected by the minister's deliberate reference to “une erreur administrative”.

Had the government's reason for breaking the rules been simply indifference, or had there been some more base motive, the Speaker might well have come to a different conclusion. Certainly in the future, anyone in search of precedents for governments ignoring an order of the House will find in the written Hansard a ministerial explanation that is materially different and allows a broader interpretation as precedent than what actually occurred.

I would welcome an explanation by the minister and facing that, an investigation by the Speaker. This new government is becoming defined by its administrative errors. I hope that is all this is.

[Health, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns HIV-AIDS funding in Canada.

Last June 19, the then minister of health, now the Deputy Prime Minister, told the Canadian AIDS Society:

The point has been made...all parties...agree that it's important to at least double the funding on an annual basis...all I have to do is convince...the Cabinet...that they should come up with $100 million.

I am not asking a question about an actual figure today. I am asking the Prime Minister a question of principle. Will the Prime Minister confirm that annual funding for HIV-AIDS will be at least doubled?

[Privilege, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that action by the government, and I will accept the word of the government House leader that this was an administrative error only.

However, I think there remains a question for the Chair to consider because the Standing Orders in question are very clear. They require the tabling of those orders in council within five sitting days after their publication in the Canada Gazette . That did not happen.

Some of the appointments with regard to which it did not happen were very important appointments. They had to do not simply with the nomination of individuals. They had to do with, in at least two cases, major changes in the structure and operation of the Government of Canada: in one case, the establishment of a secretariat responsible for Canada-U.S. relations; and in the other case, the creation of a brand new office, a special adviser on security matters to the Prime Minister.

The latter is particularly important because there had been commitments made by the Prime Minister with respect to opening up the intelligence and security operations of Canada to parliamentarians. Instead of doing that, what the government was doing, until it was caught, until I raised the issue, was effecting changes with regard to security and intelligence within the government without effecting changes that would allow the House of Commons or the other place to examine those security and intelligence operations in the way the Prime Minister had promised would occur.

Not to prolong this, I think there remains a question, without opening the validity of the House leader's reference to administrative error, as to whether the privileges and the rights of this House were abused by the repeated failure of the Government of Canada to follow an order given by this House and spelled out in Standing Order 110(1).

[Privilege, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege concerns the failure of the government to honour its obligation to give Parliament, through its committees, the opportunity to consider and examine appointments made by order in council. That is particularly important given the government's professed interest in increasing the scrutiny of appointments by Parliament. In fact, by breaking the existing rules, the government is limiting that scrutiny by Parliament.

Standing Order 110 imposes a clear obligation. It states:

(1) A Minister of the Crown shall lay upon the Table a certified copy of an Order in Council, stating that a certain individual has been appointed to a certain non-judicial post, not later than five sitting days after the Order in Council is published in the Canada Gazette. The same shall be deemed to have been referred to a standing committee specified at the time of tabling, pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), for its consideration during a period not exceeding thirty sitting days.

Standing Orders 110(2) and 111 are relevant to the argument but I will not detain the House by quoting as hon. members would be familiar with them.

Standing Order 110(1) imposes both a clear obligation and a timeframe “not later than five sitting days after the Order in Council is published in the Canada Gazette ”.

I have a list here of several order in council appointments published in the Canada Gazette from December 20, 2003 through February 7, 2004. By the rules, all these orders in council should have been tabled before the House adjourned on February 27. Sir, none was tabled.

That meant that the relevant standing committees were denied the right to consider and examine those appointments, a right conferred by an explicit order of the House.

Some of the appointments were routine, such as returning officers in various constituencies. Some might not be considered to be at the heart of public administration, such as the appointment of the new chef at 24 Sussex Drive. However some of the appointments were to new positions which reflect important new initiatives of the government and which would clearly benefit from the scrutiny of Parliament and the public.

I came upon this breach of the rules because of my interest in the appointment of Mr. Robert A. Wright as the “National Security Advisor” to the Prime Minister. That appointment was gazetted on January 17. The House sat from February 2 until February 27. Despite the clear order of the House, the order in council making that appointment has never been tabled in the House of Commons.

The security czar is a new position. It relates to security and intelligence matters which are of profound importance to this country and to Parliament. That is a field in which Canadian parliamentarians have consistently been denied the access to information that exists in other parliamentary systems, like the United Kingdom, Australia and in the United States. Breaking the rules on this appointment has denied Parliament an opportunity to look into this issue, an opportunity ordered by Parliament.

The government also failed to table orders in council respecting the new position of head of the Canada-United States Secretariat in the Privy Council Office, a position that had not existed before and that has significant implications of policy and other kinds for the Government of Canada, as well as appointments of the Commissioner of the Northern Pipeline Agency, the vice-chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, members of the Immigration and Refugee Board and other senior and sensitive positions.

You will know, Mr. Speaker, that Speaker Sauvé ruled in 1980, as quoted in Marleau and Montpetit:

...while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.

The government has a clear and explicit obligation to table these orders in council. It is spelled out in the standing orders. Its failure to act on that obligation has impeded the ability of the House to perform its function on important issues of public interest. By that failure, the government has also disobeyed a clear order of the House of Commons.

If you find it appropriate, sir, I have a motion to present.

[Auditor General's Report, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

How many crown corporations is the President of the Treasury Board investigating and is the purpose of the investigation to assess the actions taken by the crown corporations at the time of the scandal, or is the investigation simply into the measures that have been put in place since the Auditor General's report?

[Business Development Bank, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period, the Minister of Transport confirmed that the government is reviewing the decision of the board of the Business Development Bank to keep Michel Vennat in place. That review could be done quickly and no one would want its results to disappear into the mists of an election campaign.

Can the government give us an undertaking now that that speedy review will be finished and a report made to Parliament by the 15th of March, a reasonable date?

[Privilege, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, just briefly on one aspect of this point. It may be that it is expected that there is an implication that when a letter is delivered to a House leader of a political party in the House, it is delivered to every member of that political party. That may be the case.

Clearly, when a document is delivered only to House leaders, there is no delivery, either direct or implied, to members who sit in the House without affiliation to recognized political parties. In other words, independent members of Parliament, members of Parliament who are classified as independent in the House, do not receive the same right of access to a statement issued by the government as do other members of Parliament. The effect of this is to have party status intrude upon the rights of a private member of Parliament.

It was my understanding that the assault so-called upon the democratic deficit was designed precisely to put all members of Parliament on an equal footing and to deny this intrusion of party status upon the rights of individual members of Parliament.

I draw to your attention, Sir, that the question raised by the member for St. John's West, which includes Mr. Hill, has to do with the rights of individual members of Parliament who are not affiliated with parties in the House and who sit as independent members.

I hope whether or not there is a question of a breach of the rules here, there will at least in the future be a change in the practice to treat all members of the House equally.

[The Right Honourable Prime Minister, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister most of all will understand if I divert from my remarks to respond to the glancing reference by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast to my glancing period as prime minister. That's it, John. The deal is off.

You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister and I have had our disagreements. You also will know that in our most recent skirmishes, I won some debating points and he won another general election.

The Prime Minister knows that I think power has changed him, and we would disagree about that too. However what is beyond question is that he has proven himself tough enough, shrewd enough and able to win and hold that power, in his party and in his country, in a way that has very few parallels in our history.

Something else that is beyond question is his patriotism. I think the Prime Minister has been wrong on some fundamental questions about our country, and we have fought in the House, historic fights, but never for a moment have I doubted his passionate commitment to Canada.

That commitment is not abstract or intellectual. It comes, as the book says, straight from the heart. It is palpable and powerful and part of what has made him seem so real and so genuine to ordinary people across the country, and, unfortunately, so popular.

One of the reasons I welcome his retirement, just one of the reasons, is that I know his successor, whatever his strengths might prove to be, will never strike that personal chord with the people of this country.

A little more than a decade ago, the Prime Minister came with me to Yellowhead, when I had the privilege of representing that constituency here. For 20 years I had done everything I could to ensure that his party was unpopular there, and it was, but sadly, he was not. I watched the people of Drayton Valley treat this guy as though he was their next door neighbour, and I got him out of town just as soon as I could.

What is remarkable about the Prime Minister, at least before power changed him, is that he could have been the next door neighbour, anywhere in Canada. It is not just that he felt at home. Canadians feel at home with him, and that is a real and personal tribute.

In particular, I want to emphasize his commitment to two major issues that politicians tend to avoid. The first is the status of aboriginals in Canada; the second is Africa and its challenges. First let me say that, in my opinion, the Prime Minister has not always been right with regard to these issues, but we disagree on policies, not intentions.

He could easily not have focused on either issue, like most people; however, he decided to take an interest in these areas. I am among those who hope that he will continue to show leadership in this regard once he retires.

However challenging his public life has been, the Prime Minister was never in it alone. He has been often lucky in life, and most of all, in being married to Aline Chrétien.

Maryon Pearson, who was also married to a prime minister, once said something like, behind every great man there is a truly astonished woman. Maureen quotes that observation to me regularly, although she doesn't say “behind”.

Anyone who knows the Chrétiens can see that they have a strong and very loving marriage. This is the kind of people they are.

Aline Chrétien also leads a public life, and she has always been gracious, strong and courteous. She has done us proud. She did not choose to be in the public eye, unlike the rest of us, but she has embodied the noblest of values. For this, Canada owes her a great debt of gratitude.

The member for Saint-Maurice first came to this Parliament 40 years ago. Virtually nobody knew his name. I have had the same problem. It lasted longer than 20 years.

Even then some of his colleagues sensed his talents: his intuition, his ability to connect with people, his passion about issues that interested him. They gave him opportunities. He seized them. He always did.

This Prime Minister earned his way to high office. Time and again, he did the heavy lifting. Time and again, he took hard decisions which Canadians in the end supported.

Sometimes his opponents made victory easier than we should have, but that takes nothing away from the skill and toughness and determination the Prime Minister has always shown.

The tributes here today are to a man. But in a larger sense this is a Canadian story, a Canadian success story, about a democracy where ambition and ability and accomplishment can prevail.

On behalf of my colleagues, my party, my family, my country, I thank the Prime Minister for his service and wish him great success in years to come.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for South Shore, represented my party during the hearings into Mr. Radwanski. I have been serving on the committee since that time and have familiarized myself with a great deal of the evidence.

The issue here is simple. We have rules and we have remedies. When the rules are broken, as they have been in this case, there should be a remedy to that breach of the rules.

It is without question, in my view, that Mr. Radwanski has acted in a way that could be justly considered a contempt of the House, and I believe that the consequence must follow and the remedies, even though unusual, even though not invoked, as my colleague from British Columbia said, in nearly a century, should be applied in this case. If they are not applied in a clear case like this, the risk will arise that they will never be applied.

[Ethics, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Did the minister submit to the ethics counsellor the records of payments for his trip with Sandy Morrison? Did he recuse himself from cabinet discussions about budget provisions which helped Canada's major breweries to the detriment of micro-breweries?