Debates of Dec. 1st, 1997

Committees Of The House

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance entitled “Keeping the Balance: Security and Opportunity for Canadians”. This report reflects the input of literally thousands of Canadians from coast to coast and outlines the committee's recommendations for the 1998 budget.

Canadians approached this consultation with an understanding that economic growth and fiscal success are not ends in themselves but rather a means to improving the quality of life for all Canadians.

Our conversation with Canadians has allowed us to answer the question of what our approach should be for the challenges of this new era. To put it simply, Canadians want balance; not just a balanced budget but balance in government policies, in its goals and results.

Canadians want balance between the security offered by debt reduction and the benefits of investing in people, technology and research and development. Canadians firmly believe that health and education are not just items on a balance sheet but rather an expression of our core values.

Canadians have demanded accountability from the government, as well as responsibility from themselves. In “Keeping the Balance” we have tried to respond with the substance our fellow citizens demand as well as a budget plan they deserve.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the government report. The Reform Party minority report is appended to the government report on the prebudget hearings. In that report we point out that Canadians across the country, from coast to coast, universally do not accept the government's 50:50 spending promise. They do not accept that we need to spend ever more money. In fact, there is a tremendous emphasis on paying down debt and reducing taxes.

I believe that reflects what the Reform Party has heard in consultations across the country and that is reflected in its minority report which is appended to the government report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent for all parties to respond to the tabling of the committee report in the same manner as the Reform Party just did.

[The Speaker]

We have a report from the committee. We have a response. We now have a request from the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona to speak to the tabling of the committee report. We are going to try to do this legally.

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to put the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

Does the House agree that all the parties should have a chance to respond to the report with equal time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps I missed it, but I would like to ask you whether there was a time limitation put on this. I would also like the House to be well aware that this is in no way a case precedent and not necessarily going to be given to parties—

[The Speaker]

The usual tradition of the House is that whatever time it takes for the report to be tabled, other parties get equal time.

I would presume if the House has agreed to have responses that all the responders to this committee report would have approximately the same amount of time as the presenter of the report.

With that I will hear the hon. member for Halifax.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about this report, specifically to draw attention to the dissenting opinion filed by the NDP finance critic who quite correctly is concerned about the priorities reflected in the report.

I think the point of view he has presented on behalf of our caucus is summed up by the words “the federal books may be in balance, but the economy is out of kilter”.

For that reason, the New Democratic Party has put forward a dissenting view in which we have outlined the priorities that we think more accurately reflect the concerns, the voices and the values of the broad majority of Canadians that simply do not find expression in the government's majority report.

We have had an opportunity to set forward what we think the priorities ought to be, starting with making jobs the number one priority, first and foremost, which is still not reflected in the prebudget report.

Finally, the overall priority in addition to finally setting timetables and targets with respect to job creation is to be given to investments which raise our long term social and economic well-being, investments in education, in health, in tackling poverty and in the sustainability of our natural environment.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, in reading the report presented by the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, we can recognize the style of the Liberal government, a government focused on maple leaf-flavoured propaganda.

Reading this report, which was leaked by the Toronto media, we can see that the Liberals are attempting to pass it off as an objective summary of what the numerous organizations and individuals consulted since mid-October from coast to coast had to say. This is false.

In reality, this report is nothing but the red program of the Liberals from the last electoral campaign. Once again, the Liberals have thumbed their noses at the rules of democracy, by squeezing the opposition parties into a tight timeframe and thus trying to prevent us in the Parti Quebecois from voicing our opposition.

I have, moreover, strongly urged the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance to hold an in-depth review of the process surrounding publication of the finance report and to conduct his own investigation in order to identify the person or persons responsible for the leak to the media.

At any rate, this report shows that there are two economic visions, one belonging to Canada and the other to Quebec, which are diametrically opposed. Quebec condemns federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction, while the other provinces are calling for a stepped-up federal presence. The solution is extremely simple. All Quebeckers are aware that what will solve all of Quebec's socio-economic problems is Quebec sovereignty.

Privilege

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning several matters which arise from the report which was just forwarded from the Standing Committee on Finance.

By an order of this House I am a member of the standing committee. The committee, in obedience with Standing Order 83(10), undertook consideration of proposals regarding the budgetary policy of government. The staff from the Library of Parliament assisting the whole committee prepared a draft document which was to be considered in the formulation of our report.

It is well known that there have been media accounts of the contents of this committee report. I want to express my regret that our report was not first given to all members of the House. That part of the draft report started to find its way into the media before the opposition members of the committee had access to the draft material. We were not given access to the draft material until 10 a.m. last Friday and we were required to prepare a report for today. We had less than three hours to consider that material. Obviously some other members had earlier access.

The premature disclosure of a report or the disclosure of confidential committee documents is a long established ground for contempt proceedings by the House. I was unsuccessful in having this matter reported to the House by the committee so that actions could be taken by the House. I am aware that you are therefore restricted in the actions you can take.

However, I was further obstructed in the discharge of my obligations to this House. On several occasions I requested access to the document which was to form the basis of our draft report. I made my request known to the chairman of the committee and was repeatedly told that I could not have access to these papers which were prepared for the entire committee by staff. This included descriptions of the hearings, summaries of the testimony of witnesses, history of past government policies and so forth.

I was then informed that my opinion about our hearings or the government's budgetary policies could be included in a section of dissenting opinions. In other words, no matter what I may have wanted to propose, I would not be given a chance to have my opinions considered by my colleagues on the committee for inclusion in the report proper.

Opposition views would not find their way into the committee report. I would not have a chance to see a draft report within a reasonable timeframe nor to debate its accuracy and merits and any views which I might have. Whether or not I agreed with the draft report would be relegated to the status of dissent opinions.

Mr. Speaker, this contempt for the maintenance of a legitimate process is troubling to me. These hearings cost Canadian taxpayers over $400,000. Are they to be nothing but a public relations show for the Minister of Finance? Did they go through this exercise just to save the minister the time of having to meet with the groups that addressed the committee while he met with the select groups of his choosing?

Certainly there will be a division of opinion about which budgetary policy the government should follow. However, the one-sided nature of this process is a mockery of this House. The Liberal attitude was that there was no need for debate, no need to defend their position, no need to do anything other than to tell the Minister of Finance what he wanted to hear.

The only people on the committee who could offer opinions for inclusion in the main body of the report were the Liberal members of this committee. All other members were denied access to the draft material and their views were held to be not worthy of debate. They were told their opinions would be slapped into the report as dissenting views. Dissenting from what? We committee members were never to know. Nor were the Liberals to consider our views and debate them in committee. We on this side of the House, we are not to be participants. By virtue of where we sit, we are labelled as dissidents from the revealed truth of the Liberals.

The old Liberal arrogance is back. Stop opposition members from participating in discussions, deny them access to draft reports. “They couldn't possibly agree with us so don't waste time letting them in the door”. The finance committee of the House of Commons is nothing more than an organ of the Minister of Finance and the Liberal caucus. Certainly this was the view of several witnesses after their experiences before the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider whether or not the denial of my access to committee draft papers available to other members of the committee constitutes an obstruction of a member and therefore constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, the question of privilege is very serious. I saw two members rising in their places. Is it on this question of privilege?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Yes, it is.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I want to confirm that what I saw of how the finance committee conducted itself with respect to sharing information with members of the opposition exactly reflects what the member said.

When I confirmed to the chairman of the finance committee that we would probably be bringing in a minority report, we were told that we would have to have that minority report in by last Wednesday without seeing the majority report. We never had a chance to even see the report but had to put in a minority report.

To add insult to injury, the next day we read about the government's report in the newspapers. It could only have been leaked from one place, the government. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it has really jaundiced my opinion of how the government operates its committees. I do believe that this is a breach of the hon. member's privileges and those of all opposition members who sit on the finance committee.

I hope that the Speaker will very seriously consider what the hon. member is saying. I really do confirm his concerns. I hope that the government takes what it has done extraordinarily seriously because I believe it has caused quite a rift between government and opposition members.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to the points raised by the hon. two members across.

On one hand we heard a number of remarks on the government. Even the government's motive is being questioned by the hon. member from the Conservative Party. While I totally reject the premises and indeed the allegations behind the government's sincerity, what the government is seeking to do and what it asked the committee to do and what I believe the committee did in all sincerity is provide valuable input which I am sure this report will be. I have not read it yet. I suspect neither have most people.

There are two points in particular which I would like to address. One is that the hon. member for Medicine Hat has just said that it wanted to provide a minority report before seeing the report of the majority. He then went on to say that it was wrong for the majority to pretend that it would not agree with the minority report. At the same time he said that he wanted to file a minority report without having seen what he believes was the report of the majority. Mr. Speaker, one cannot have it both ways. That is not logical in the thought process.

On a more fundamental point and where I do agree with hon. members, and hopefully we will all agree, is the following. That a leak from a report from the committee is not appropriate before the House is seized with the report. I believe that the first group of people who should see a report prepared by any committee are hon. members of this House. That is why we have been sent here. This is our mandate. It is our sacred duty. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you are the custodian of our rights as members of Parliament. To that extent I agree that no one should ever make a report accessible to someone who is not a member of Parliament prior to members of Parliament—

[An hon. member]

What are you going to do about it?

[An hon. member]

So why did you do it?

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

Mr. Speaker, one member has just gratuitously accused me personally of leaking the government document. I hope that he would choose to withdraw an allegation like that. For him to even say that is not knowing me very well.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is wrong for anyone to leak a report from the committee. Members of the House, I, you and everyone else have a right to see it at the same time, possibly before anyone else.

In regard to the government's motives behind this, Mr. Speaker, I can give you my impression as a member of this government. What we want to know through this process is what the general public thinks should be in the budget. That is why the process is there and that is why we have already scheduled a two day debate later in this session but before Christmas so that Canadians through their members of Parliament can have a debate in the House of Commons and listen to the valuable contributions which all members of Parliament will make in that process.

I summarize by saying that I do not believe that anyone on the government side did anything wrong in terms of the content of the report. I do agree that if anyone leaked this report to the media then that in itself is obviously wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege just put forward by the hon. member for Markham.

Keeping in mind the comments made by the hon. House leader for the government, I am not going to burden the House with a recitation of precedents on the issue of advanced disclosure of committee reports. The hon. member has put forward the principle that he certainly agrees that all members of this House should be given the opportunity to view this prior to it being made public. Unfortunately, that is no the case here.

Unfortunately, the Globe and Mail , the Star and another publication—I believe the Financial Post —had this information in advance of opposition members. This is a very serious breach of privilege, I would submit.

It is not only an insult to the House, but it is an insult to all members and an insult in particular, I would suggest, to staff members on this committee because as a result of this occurrence, it casts a shadow over their involvement in the process. Those persons are now under suspicion, I would suggest, as a result of this leak occurring.

The point brought forward by the member for Markham is very serious. This is a situation that the government is going to have to look into in more detail, not only to ensure that it does not happen again, but to ensure accountability and to ensure that the good name and reputation of those staff persons involved in this particular committee are not going to be besmirched by this incident.

It is problematic in and of the fact that some members of the committee had it and others did not, but I would suggest equal importance and equal emphasis have to be placed on the fact that these staff persons are now castigated by this particular occurrence.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the absence of a distinct report on the matter from the standing committee, there is an overriding duty on you to permit this House to probe the situation which compromises the staff of this House. They should not have to tolerate this situation in silence, and I say emphatically that I do not believe for one moment that any staff person involved here is the source of the leak—that is not the allegation—but because of the leak, they have been placed in a non-acceptable position and it is up to this House, I would suggest, to remove that cloud.

If the House does not address this premature disclosure issue and the standards it expects regarding disclosure and non-disclosure, the bad situation will be made worse. Some members of this House favour more transparency at the committee deliberations. That, I would suggest, is a good thing. Certainly the Finance committee is not of a mind that leaking a report is going to do anything to help improve the reputation of this House.

They voted down a motion by the hon. member for Markham to bring this matter to the House and now I would suggest a double standard exists. The rules require confidentiality, the committee has voted not to bring the matter of the leak to the attention of the House and others may see merit in keeping it confidential.

However, I would suggest that having a report introduced through the media rather than the proper channels that we know exist in this House is completely inappropriate.

Whatever the views of this House, I would suggest that there should be some debate and an agreement on the standards that we expect with respect to the introduction of these reports.

Mr. Speaker, I invite you to consider the position of the employees involved in this particular matter when this game is played and leaks are put out to the media and I would ask that should you find that a prima facie case exists meriting priority consideration by this House, I would be pleased to move the motion in this regard.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I want to hear opinions, of course, on a point of privilege. I do not want us to get into debate. If we go back and forth, it turns into a debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say briefly that we support the comments by the Conservative members about the Liberals. In the present circumstances, it is very obvious that what has been done is very harmful to the government's pre-budgetary consultations.

I would like to speak about my personal situation. I conducted a pre-budgetary consultation in my riding and constituents kept asking me if it was serious, if it would be taken into consideration, if they would be able to see the results of the suggestions they were making. I said that when I was elected to Parliament, this pre-budgetary consultation process did not really exist. It can be considered one of this government's good moves.

But today, with the news of the leak, everything that has been said—and that is what I told my constituents as their member of Parliament—has been thrown into question by the fact that there is now no point in participating, that this is more political opportunism to give one party a leg up over the others.

I therefore find the comment by the Conservative member to be very relevant. The government can try to make the best of it by allowing two days of debate. I think that that would perhaps be interesting.

My feeling as a parliamentarian, however, was that I and the constituents in my riding who took part in the consultations had been taken for a ride.

[The Speaker]

I am going to listen a second time out, if you have new information to give us, the hon. member for Medicine Hat, and then I will go to the hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out very quickly that oftentimes opposition parties do issue minority reports. I was being very frank with the chairman of the finance committee when I made that statement. I did not suggest for a second that opposition members should not be allowed to see the majority report. Even if we do issue a minority report, Mr. Speaker, certainly it would be nice to be able to see the majority report so that if we wish to amend what we are proposing we can do that but that was not allowed.

The second point I wish to make very briefly is that I trust, Mr. Speaker, you will look into the very serious matter of who leaked this document and that it will be made very public so that we can get to the bottom of this. I do believe that it besmirches the whole reputation of the committee system when that sort of thing happens in Parliament.