Debates of Nov. 19th, 1998

National Defence

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we simply are determined that the patterns of the past will be avoided now and in the future.

We have opened up, through the national investigation service, a 1-800 line. We have asked people who in fact have allegations and issues that were not properly dealt with previously and where justice was not properly attained to come forward. That is why there is an increase in the reporting of these cases.

Many of these cases go back many years. But we are determined to get to the bottom of these matters. We are determined that justice be done.

Transport

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the future of the Halifax port is key to the future of the Nova Scotian economy. But economic development is crippled by the patronage politics of the past.

Urgent calls from business, labour and even the provincial Liberal government have demanded that the problems with the port advisory committee process be addressed. These are urgent calls that have been ignored by the minister.

Will the transport minister listen to Nova Scotians? Will he commit today to go to Halifax to hear these concerns firsthand?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we have been setting up port advisory committees across the country. We have put a public notice in the newspapers in Halifax. We put a group of people together, six of whom represent the chamber of commerce. Four represent the Halifax shipping authority. One represents organized labour and was the unanimous choice of organized labour, the longshoremen's union. They have come together to devise a process for future nominations that will be incorporated into the letters patent.

We have been doing this with every single port across the country. Halifax is no different.

The group has selected categories of users and we will have to select people to represent those categories.

Not one director has been appointed. We are certainly open to suggestions, even from the opposite—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday for the first time the finance minister credited the previous PC government for his debt reduction plan. He said “They set up a deficit reduction plan. What we are in fact doing is doing exactly what his government set up”.

The Economist magazine has also said that the PC policies are responsible for his government's success in eliminating the deficit.

Now that the finance minister has admitted that his best policies have come from the previous PC government, I ask him to do it again, take good PC policy and reduce taxes for Canadians today.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Progressive Conservative Party is very good at setting up plans. It has had a lot of experience. It set one up every six months. The difference is that they never kept them.

The deficit, every single year, kept creeping up. Time after time the minister of finance would stand in this House and apologize. He would say “I have a new plan”. The next thing would be that that plan would be blown and he would have a new plan. Then he would have a new plan.

They planned this country into a $42 billion deficit and we eliminated it.

International Trade

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary for International Trade. I just read in one of our newspapers that the U.S. is investigating charges that Canadian cattle is being unfairly subsidized and dumped into the U.S. market.

What is the minister going to do to defend our Canadian cattle industry?

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, in fact the United States government has not yet started an investigation. If it does proceed, the Government of Canada is confident that U.S. authorities will find no factual basis to these allegations, just as they have done in the past.

In 1987, 1993 and 1997 our cattle exports were investigated by the United States. They found no basis for any trade action against Canada at that time.

If they do decide to go forward, the Canadian government will work with the cattle industry and the provinces to defend our interests.

Apec Inquiry

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us recap. We have two sworn affidavits proving that the solicitor general compromised the Public Complaints Commission.

We have two lawyers for both the RCMP and the students trying to kill the commission because it has been compromised, but the deputy PM keeps stonewalling.

The only process that has credibility is an independent judicial inquiry. When are we going to get one?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let me recap. If an inquiry was set up, it would be set up by the Prime Minister. He would appoint the commissioner, even if it was a judge. He would set the terms of reference. He would set the life of the commission. He would receive the report.

I am glad the hon. member and the Reform Party show their confidence in the Prime Minister. We have the same confidence. It is time they began showing that confidence in the same way as the majority of the Canadian people.

Augusto Pinochet

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was obviously not aware of the request filed by a torture victim of the Pinochet government in 1973.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Will the minister proceed with the request of this person, and will the government have the courage, like other governments, to bring charges against General Pinochet for crimes against humanity and to ask for his extradition?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the request to which the hon. member refers. In fact I have referred the matter to the RCMP.

In addition, I have asked the war crimes unit in my department to consider the facts of this case.

Canadian Farmers

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. The minister knows that western farmers are in crisis. Net farm income is down 70% to 84% since last year. It is the lowest since the depression. European and American governments are backing their farmers. Farmers are telling me in Craik, Tugaske and Nokomis, Saskatchewan, that they cannot pay their bills now from last summer.

When will the minister of agriculture announce an emergency aid program for farmers in crisis?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times we have to tell the hon. member and the members opposite that we are working with the provincial governments and the industry to put in place short term support, along with the support that is already there for the farmers of Canada, as well as mid-term support.

In addition, we are working with the WTO so that we can help alleviate these types of situations in the future.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a group of Canadians of extraordinary talent and accomplishment in the field of Canadian literature. They have devoted their energies toward enriching the cultural life of Canada.

They received the 1998 Governor General's Award for Literature, the most prestigious tribute to the great writers of Canada.

I will call out the names of these 13 recipients who are with us today. I know many of you know many of them personally.

François Archambault, Stephanie Bolster, Angèle Delaunois, Sheila Fischman, Christiane Frenette, Janet Lunn, Kady Macdonald Denton, Charlotte Melançon, Pierre Nepveu, Pierre Pratt, David Adams Richards, Diane Schoemperlen, Djanet Sears.

Please welcome warmly the 1998 laureates of the Governor General's Award for Literature.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

There will be a reception for our guests in room 216. I invite you to come.

Business Of The House

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition of Canada I shall be delighted to put Thursday's question to the government House leader.

What is on the agenda of the House for the remainder of this week and for the next week?

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

Madam Speaker, in a word, plenty. Let me give a more full answer.

Today is an opposition day. Tomorrow we will take up the second reading of Bill C-58, the railway safety bill. On Monday of next week we will resume consideration of report stage of Bill C-53, the small business bill. If time permits we will then consider third reading of Bill C-42, the Tobacco Act amendments, the second reading of Bill C-48, the marine parks bill, Bill C-49, the first nation lands bill, and Bill C-56, the Manitoba land claims bill.

On Tuesday we will do the third reading of Bill C-53 given that we will likely have completed the report stage on Monday. For any time that remains on that day we will continue with any unfinished business that I previously described beginning with the third reading of Bill C-42.

On Wednesday we will continue with the list I have just indicated and at the end add Bill C-35, the special imports bill.

It is my hope that we will complete this very full agenda by the time I described next week.

Points Of Order

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister in numerous questions during question period quoted from a document, an affidavit, that is well known now to members of this House. Can we please have that affidavit tabled?

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

Madam Speaker, I understand the document in question has been laid. Therefore it will constitute a public document. If that is the case, I will endeavour to have it tabled as soon as possible. I thank my colleague for raising the question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

When we interrupted the debate for question period we were discussing a question of privilege.

Are there other members who would like to be heard on the subject? The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

Privilege

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief.

The question of privilege that was raised this morning, I will recall, concerns the fact that the report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs dealing with nuclear matters was published in a newspaper this morning. The committee felt its position was somewhat jeopardized and we thought it was important to raise this matter in the House.

I do not want to repeat what the committee's chairman and my colleagues have already said. However, I want to assure the House that even if the matter under scrutiny deals with nuclear matters, we in the foreign affairs committee will make sure that the independence and the sovereignty of this Parliament and of this country will prevail. Never will the committee accept to be told what to do or what to say by anyone, wherever in the world.

There seems to be a problem with committee reports. The chairman asked the Speaker to look into it. While we regret this situation, we want to assure our colleagues in the House and our fellow Canadians that the committee remains independent and sovereign and that it will strive to protect and defend the interests of all Canadians.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too want to make some comment on the matter raised by the hon. member from Rosedale.

He has brought to the attention of the House the apparent publication of contents of a draft report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. Such publication or disclosure of committee reports at draft stage or disclosure of committee work in process before it is made public, particularly work done in camera, has always been considered and classed as a breach of the privileges of the House. From what has been told to the House today I can only accept that there has been what we sometimes refer to as a prima facie breach of privilege. In listening to members today I see no difference emerging in their views. The question is what should the House do, what should the committee do in responding to this.

It is my view that this might well be an appropriate case for the House, for colleagues on both sides of the House, to draw the line in the sand, first so that we will all know and the public will know where this stands in terms of parliamentary law and that we are not doing this simply to assert a parliamentary position. We are doing it to protect what we regard as representatives of Canadians as the public interest, that we need the flexibility to deal with these public interest issues in camera from time to time. When we do that we must demand that the rules of the House and the privileges of parliament be respected.

We now have to determine what we should do. Should we just make the point and walk away? Should we deal with the case generically by referring it to one of our committees? Or should we make use of this instance to draw a line in the sand and actually attempt to locate the source of the leak?

Experience in this and other parliaments seems to show that while it is easy to find the publication of the information, it is not so easy to find the location of the leak. Locating the person or the mechanism by which the leak occurred would involve calling witnesses and require testimony from individuals who might not wish to provide testimony.

While the House has the undoubted authority and power to do this, it is an exercise which colleagues on both sides of the House would want to undertake with a fair bit of dedication and commitment. There would be no point in pursuing this and doing half a job.

The member from Rosedale did not indicate that he wished to move a motion, but I am sure he would move a motion if the Chair found that the facts in this case did constitute a breach of the privileges of the House. I am confident that the Chair will find that and I want to make the following suggestion.

It may not have occurred previously in this House but I gather it has occurred in the British House which takes the same position, incidentally, in relation to the premature publication of committee draft proceedings or in camera proceedings. That is to refer the matter not to the House management committee, which would address the breach of privilege issue, but to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs out of which the problem first arose. That committee would attempt to put together the facts surrounding the unauthorized publication and release, the leak, call witnesses as appropriate and report back to the House with comment on how serious the unauthorized publication would have been, how serious for public interest it would have been and what importance the House should attach to it.

The House will probably agree that there are times when a leak of a phrase will not mean too much. But in this case it was a report dealing with the formation of this country's policy on nuclear disarmament and it is a matter of no small importance to the way this country formulates its policy and carries on business in the international community.

I suggest it is a fairly serious issue, but members best equipped to comment on that would be the members of the foreign affairs committee.

I simply hold that out as one option available which the Chair or members of that committee may wish to look at more closely. In the event that approach is not taken, I believe if a breach of privilege is found by the Chair the matter should stand referred to the House management committee which looks at these matters generally.

I for one would want to see that committee pursue the matter aggressively, making this case for all Canadians and the media that sometimes rely on MPs to entertain the masses and to write their stories without having to do their homework. We should look at this case as a serious breach and attempt to make use of it to draw the line in the sand so that we would have fewer or no breaches of this important parliamentary privilege.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to add my comments to this question of privilege. I am thankful that it was raised by a member on the government side because it has happened to me personally on two occasions.

The first occasion it happened to me was as a member of the justice committee when we considering the recommendations of the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act in in camera hearings. Those recommendations were prematurely leaked and carried in the Ottawa Citizen .

It is interesting that the reporter who covered the story wrote verbatim some of the recommendations that we were contemplating at that time. I approached the reporter and challenged him if he had been used by the government side to leak the message it wanted leaked to the news media. He admitted that was the case. When I jokingly challenged him to reveal the name of the individual, he refused to do so.

On a second occasion, with the same justice committee that was dealing with recommendations on victims rights in in camera hearings, the same reporter prematurely leaked those recommendations. I want it placed on record for the consideration of those members of the House or the committee that this matter might be referred to. If they are interested, the fact of the matter is that reporter from the Ottawa Citizen is now working for the federal justice department.

As I said earlier, I was very grateful that this question was raised by a member on the government side. It has been ongoing. There is no doubt in my mind that on each of the occasions I was involved in there was no member of the justice committee involved in the leak.

The concern expressed by all members of the justice committee clearly indicated to me that someone else probably beyond the members of the committee was using, for whatever reason, the information contained within these in camera meetings for his or her purposes. It is very serious. Either we deal with it as a serious matter or, as my whip said earlier, we simply ignore the importance of the work of members of committees.

I lend my support to the need to have a serious look at these breaches of confidentiality that ought to be regarded with the greatest degree of severity as work commences and proceeds within these committees.