Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1998

Government Response To Petitions

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This is the report of the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada entitled “Sport in Canada: Leadership, Partnership and Accountability; Everybody's Business”.

Hong Kong Veteran Prisoner Compensation Act

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-463, an act to provide for compensation to those Canadian veterans who were taken prisoner by the Japanese in 1941 in Hong Kong and forced to work in labour camps.

Mr. Speaker, Christmas Day 1941 started a despicable period of time when 2,000 Canadian soldiers who defended Hong Kong were interned by the Japanese and put into forced labour in Japanese industries.

Since that period of incarceration, Japan made a settlement of $1 a day in the early 1950s which was not a settlement in kind. The Canadian government went on in 1955 to conspire against further compensation to these same war veterans.

This bill is to set right a gross wrong that occurred many years ago. It is long overdue. It is fair, right and has all-party support. I must be done.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that human rights violations continue in many countries around the world, including Indonesia.

The petitioners also acknowledge that Canada is internationally respected for its defence of universal human rights and in this, the 50th anniversary of the UN declaration of universal human rights, the petitioners call on the government to continue its efforts to speak out against countries which tolerate violations of human rights and to do whatever is possible to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present on behalf of my constituents three petitions this morning.

The first has to do with the CRTC. Some 100 petitioners ask that parliament review the mandate of the CRTC which would not only permit but encourage the licensing of religious broadcasters.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is similar in principle. It has to do with marriage.

The petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation such as Bill C-225 so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed by some 25 people, mostly in my riding. There are one or two stragglers from Edmonton on this one.

It concerns the family. The role of parents is being diminished and the petitioners ask respectfully that parliament retain section 43 of the Criminal Code which permits parents to use reasonable force in training their children.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition today on behalf of the citizens of Gloucester from the riding of Carleton—Gloucester.

The petitioners say Canadians deserve an accountable Senate and the Prime Minister should accept the results of a Senate election.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by 30 people in my riding asking that the marriage act be amended so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place.

I gave you notice of this matter of privilege, and each party House leader, with respect to a news release yesterday by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. I have sent Mr. Speaker a copy of this but it is short enough that I would like to read it. It is dated December 2:

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services today announced the creation of the Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council to provide advice on the Parliament Hill renovations.

“The Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council will provide an important support mechanism to the renovation projects of Parliament Hill”, said [the minister]. “The Advisory Council will aim to make a valued contribution to improving the level of information, consultation and co-operation on preserving these important heritage assets”.

The Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council will be comprised of membership from the private and public sectors, including: representatives of the Senate; House of Commons; the Library of Parliament; the National Capital Commission; Canada Heritage; as well as representatives of the private sector architectural and engineering professional associations.

The Advisory Council will be an independent advisory board that will advise the Minister of PWGSC, as the authority accountable for the Parliament Hill renovations.

These texts are also available in French.

I have been disturbed for some time by the cabinet's attitude toward parliament. Ministers seem to take great pride in avoiding interaction with this House. A dangerous culture grew in the last parliament in which cabinet ignored this House and its members. I can count on one hand the number of ministerial statements that have been made since this parliament reconvened. Those statements have been most often and appropriately prompted by expressions of public sympathy for disasters, yet they have not been announcements by government on policy or matters that should be brought to the attention of this House in the first instance. The House of Commons is the place where the government is most answerable to the people who elected the members of this Chamber.

A culture of spin doctoring and media manipulation appears to have grown. To date this House has been prepared to ignore it and to remain silent, while our right to be informed of government action and policy decisions has been superseded by default by government to the news releases. It appears there is no one in this place, nor in government who asks whether this is an announcement that should be made by the minister to parliament. It is time for the House to draw a line in this regard. I think that everyone in this place would agree.

Mr. Speaker, two days ago, in response to pleas from the opposition House leader, you admonished the fact that there were alleged leaks. You quite properly appealed to members at that time to respect this House. You said: “The best place for announcements is here in this House, where we are. This is where they should be made”.

This situation is very much akin to the situation you were dealing with at that time. It is very similar. This is a ministerial announcement. The place for this to have been made is here in this Chamber. I would suggest there is not a member here who would disagree with that. The minister of public works is dealing with a very important situation at this time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended two meetings at which you and other House officers were present. We met at the Board of Internal Economy. We met with respect to a situation that had arisen in the Chamber coming out of question period. I would wager that you as Speaker were not aware that this ministerial statement was taking place.

As members of this place we are entitled in the first instance to hear in this Chamber of such important matters. Are we not members of this place? Do we not deserve that respect? I am certain that if other members had been aware of this announcement there may have been reference to it. There may have been reference to it at the informal meeting we held in your office, yet there was none. Obviously the government was aware while opposition members were not aware.

The simple fact is that the minister of public works has attempted to avoid the House of Commons on this issue. There is good reason for that. It is becoming plainly obvious to everyone that there are serious problems with this project and the budget that has been attached to it.

The minister may try to play tough guy with the public servants, but we are watching him. This is an abrogation of ministerial responsibility. The minister obviously does not want to listen to the responses of the opposition parties and it is well known that he brooks no opposition. Just ask the public servants who were hung out to dry by the minister before the examination by the auditor general.

As members of parliament we have an obligation to discharge and the place to do that is here in the House. We cannot effectively do so if the ministry is systematically avoiding coming into this House to enter into parliamentary dialogue and exchange.

We have been patient with the government and we have tried to make this place work, although there have been times when it has stumbled.

The public works minister seems to think this place is a museum. He calls this place a heritage asset. But we are here as an asset ourselves to parliament. Although I am not one content to sit on the shelf while the minister of public works runs roughshod over the House of Commons, I suggest that this is an insult and that he owes it to this place to consult and he owes it to this House to make announcements in this place if it is to truly be respected.

The particular museum piece is through with passive acceptance of the norms of the last parliament. We are signalling that this is unacceptable and we invite other members to participate in this question of privilege and to join in this fight to assert that the authority of this House is to be respected, not only by the opposition but by government members as well. Ministers have a duty to this place and to those who use this building.

Canada is not alone in suffering the attack of the spin doctors. Your colleague in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Speaker Betty Boothroyd, has repeatedly stated: “When there is a major change of policy, a statement should first be made in the House”.

Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of citation 352 of Beauchesne's and I am not arguing that there has been a breach of privilege per se, but I do argue that there is contempt of the House. I would ask you to reserve your decision on this point in order that you may consider the consequences of allowing this conduct to continue and to continue unchallenged by the Chair and by the opposition.

Have we reached the day when this House is so weak willed that we will allow this to occur? Surely that cannot be the case. The time has come for parliamentary assertion of respect, not only for the physical premises, not only for these buildings that the minister of public works seeks to remedy and to fix, but respect for the members and all of the rights and privileges that flow from this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, there is a remedy that goes beyond a simple admonition from the Chair and I ask you to find that there is a prima facie circumstance to permit consideration by the House of a motion instructing the minister of public works to make a statement in the House, fully outlining the government's intention with respect to the restoration of the parliamentary precinct.

Mr. Speaker, this is a request that a statement be made in the House and that perhaps the Speaker also consider issuing an admonition and that the minister apologize. If you are prepared to permit this motion, I would move that that take place and that we refer the matter to a committee, if that is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come and I believe, in respect to you, that you took a step in that direction yesterday by bringing the House leaders together and looking for solutions that will improve the way this Chamber works. I am appealing to you on this matter. This is not the first time this has happened. In fact it has become the norm in parliament that ministerial statements are made at the press gallery and not on the floor of the House of Commons.

I am a new member of this Chamber, but in the short time that I have been here I have seen this trend continue and I find it absolutely insulting, not only to members of the House but to the Canadian people. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate your consideration of this point.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on the same question of privilege that the hon. member opposite has raised.

It is in the context of what he said that I wish to address the House. In particular, it is the pattern that is being developed that I find a little disturbing.

It seems to me that there has been more than one breach of the privileges that ought to be observed for members of parliament. We are here to represent the people and to represent the best interests of the people, and also to be judicious in the way in which public funds are spent.

What the minister announced was in direct agreement with what the auditor general announced two days before. He asked that such an advisory board be established. That advisory board was suggested many years before. In 1992 a similar suggestion was made by the auditor general and nothing was done. To the extent that the minister is doing what the auditor general suggested should be done, that is fine. I do not disagree with that. But I do disagree with the fact that he took away the privilege of letting members know what the government is doing in this regard.

We are not dealing with a $100 million expenditure. According to the auditor general's figure, we are dealing with a number of $1.4 billion. Reparations to the parliamentary precinct were originally approved, if my memory is correct, at about $250 million.

To date, projects worth $423 million have been approved. Not all of that money has been spent, but the projects have been approved.

Recently the minister appeared before the committee and suggested that there would be considerable additional expenditures.

Now the auditor general has said, upon examining the issue, that it is going to be $1.4 billion. That is no small amount. That this group should now act as an advisory board I think is a good thing. However, the minister should have made the announcement here in this House. That is the issue.

A couple of days ago the House leader for the official opposition said that there are leaks happening in the committees. He does not like those leaks taking place and neither do I. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you do not like what is happening. In fact, you expressed yourself to that effect and I commend you for doing that.

Before that we had the Minister for International Trade announcing the creation of a Canada-China parliamentary association before parliament had even created it.

The government appointed Mr. Landry to the millennium scholarship foundation at a time when there was no legislation before the House to set up the foundation.

There was a similar case with the Canadian Wheat Board. Once again the government began implementing measures before the measures were approved by parliament.

I raise these issues because there is a pattern developing.

When this parliament began, the government set up a CPP board before the legislation authorizing this board was adopted by parliament.

The Speaker said on November 6, 1997 that “the dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices”. That is the issue that I wish to address.

The sole source contracts that were addressed by the auditor general is another issue. There were $4.4 billion in sole source contracts and 85% of them—

[The Speaker]

I think we are getting away from the question of privilege. However, I am getting the drift of what the hon. member is driving at and I will allow him to summarize.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in summary, the point I am trying to make is that every minister ought to honour this House and give to this House information concerning a change of policy or a change in direction.

It is a major shift for the minister of public works to say that the parliamentary precinct will now have, as a co-ordinating body, a group of people from outside this parliament to advise the minister. He should have said that in this House. That is my point.

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly on this question of privilege, we should make a point of not confusing this question of privilege with other things that have arisen in the House lately with respect to the leaking of committee reports or the whole question of decorum.

The only thing this is related to that has come up in recent days is the matter of more business being done in the House where it should properly done. In that sense it is related to things that have come up in previous days.

I would certainly want to agree that this kind of announcement should have been made in the House. I want to make that point in the context of the larger argument that more ministerial policy announcements should be made in the House. I would reinforce that general point.

The nature of this announcement had to do with the parliamentary precinct itself. It seems to me that it would have been a perfect example of something that should have been announced here in this House.

It was announced outside the House without any foreknowledge, that I am aware of, either on the part of the Chair or others who are concerned about this matter.

Without breaching any confidences, I am aware of meetings that went on yesterday in which people were discussing this very thing: the relationship between parliament and public works and what was going on here on the hill, et cetera. Then, all of a sudden, we read in the paper that the minister of public works had made an announcement and did not even make it in the House where there would have been an opportunity to respond.

I think this raises again, Mr. Speaker, whether or not you find that there is a question of privilege with respect to the whole question of the continuing inadequacy of the relationship between parliament and public works and the general lack of direction, lack of overall planning and lack of overall accountability for what happens here in the parliamentary precinct.

I would call the House back to recommendations that were made in 1985 by the McGrath committee, the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons in which we called at that time for the establishment of a parliamentary intendant. That was the phrase we used. It was somewhat along the lines of the congressional architect, which is what they have in the United States in Washington, D.C. It is someone who is over both houses, over the congressional precinct and accountable to both houses, someone who could be the focus of decision making and planning for the parliamentary precinct including both houses, the hill, offices, et cetera. We do not have that now.

We have a continuing problem with both the media and the public trying to find out who is really responsible for the decisions that are made about what is going to be renovated, how much it will cost and what is the long term plan. They do not know whether it is public works, the Senate or the House of Commons. Frankly sometimes we do not seem to know ourselves. We as members of parliament read about things in the papers, decisions that have been taken somewhere else, and we have to answer for them when it comes to public works and the minister.

This should be one more occasion for the House to get its act together and try to clean up the confusion that exists with respect to the various roles of the House and public works.

I also reinforce the point, as I have whenever I get the chance, that more announcements should be made in the House. I feel that this announcement should have been made in the House. There should have been more consultation with the appropriate members of parliament and the appropriate bodies within parliament before such an announcement was made. We should not have had to find out about this by reading the papers.

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

Mr. Speaker, this would not be a question of privilege in any case. If it would have been a point of anything, which it was not, it would have been a point of order in reference to perhaps Standing Order 33(1) which relates to when ministers can make statements.

I bring this to the attention of the Chair. This has nothing to do with a question of privilege, and I will get into that later. Standing Order 33(1) states:

On Statements by Ministers, as listed in Standing Order 30(3), a Minister of the Crown may make a short factual announcement or statement of government policy.

This standing order says that it is optional for the minister to make it and in areas of government policy, presumably important enough areas, to make the announcement on the floor of the House, again remembering the issue “may make”.

This morning we heard accusations against the hon. Minister of Public Works and Deputy Government Leader in the House, in his absence. The minister is here every day, as we all know. As a matter of fact he consults regularly with all of us. He is a member of the Board of Internal Economy. He accepted to sit on that board at my request so that he could be in greater contact with all of us because of the important ongoing renovations on the Hill.

He frequently attends, although not always as it is difficult for ministers to be several places at once, the Board of Internal Economy meetings and liaises very closely with House of Commons staff.

In addition, we have before us today the following proposition raised by a Reform MP. Should or should not the minister of public works have adhered to a recommendation made by another officer of parliament, namely the auditor general? That is exactly what he did.

The auditor general, an officer of parliament, made a recommendation in the House two days ago and the minister responded to it yesterday. There are approximately 200 pages to the auditor general's report.

Does that mean that every minister who responded yesterday to the auditor general's report should have tabled or made a statement in the House of Commons? That is an absurd proposition. Even if it were true on a very major change of government policy, should that have been the case for the minister appointing an advisory council for himself? This is an advisory council to the minister of public works to assist him in his work.

Every time we appoint an advisory council for ourselves as individual ministers, we will have to make statements in the House according to what the House leader of the Conservative Party has just said.

I hope that you wait, Mr. Speaker, until tomorrow to render a decision. The Chair might find out later today that all this is a prelude to a press conference which others want to make later today in order to question the expenditures of the renovations of the Hill and so on, and has nothing to do with a question of privilege or a point of order.

If I were a betting man, I would bet right now there will be a press conference later today. Maybe a senator by the name of Marjory LeBreton is organizing the press conference that is to be held later today. Maybe it has everything to do with that and nothing to do with a point of order on the floor of the House, much less a question of privilege. That is what I submit to Your Honour. There are issues—

[An hon. member]

What a charade.

[The Speaker]

I want to hear information on this question of privilege specifically. I do not want members to get into a debate. The hon. government House leader will probably summarize for us quite soon.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me summarize. There is this morning a very important issue that involves the privileges of the House and I wish it would be raised by members of parliament, instead of doing what we are now.

Someone undermining all of us in the House of Commons gave access to a journalist to part of the precincts reserved for members of parliament. It was on the front page of newspapers today. It undermined everyone here and no one is raising anything about that matter today. That is wrong.

[The Speaker]

I will hear one final intervention on the question of privilege.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a couple of comments. I believe we are getting into a bit of debate here which is not around the privilege issue.

There are a couple of points I would like to answer which the government House leader brought to our attention. One is that although we can indeed question the minister any time he is in the House, the difficulty is that if someone feels there is a question of privilege we must raise it at the earliest possible moment. The government House leader knows that this is the earliest possible moment. I think it is appropriate that it is brought forward now and I await your decision on it, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing inappropriate about bringing it forward now. If we had waited—who knows when the minister might be here—two or three days to bring it forward it would be out of order just because of lateness. I think it is entirely in order to bring it forward.

This is somewhat different from most ministerial announcements because it potentially deals with the privileges of members. We see in the newspaper articles today that it may affect the location of members' offices, especially those of backbenchers. It may affect access to which buildings are to be used by committees and so on.

This raises the concern level of backbench MPs. Some members might say that the last time they talked to their representatives on the board they thought there was to be another way of handling the issue of who looks after the precincts of the Hill, who will be giving directions to the architects and who will be overseeing the minister's works so that it is not just a public works project or indeed renovations, work and costs riding herd on the availability of computer services and all that sort of thing. Who is looking after it on behalf of members of parliament? It is certainly not the minister. It is the board. Perhaps there should be an oversight committee of parliamentarians.

Just as a final point, I remind the Speaker that on other occasions when things are announced in the press I believe the Speaker has already ruled that it is a trend we must be concerned with. It is not just one incident in and of itself. It is kind of like language in question period. It is not just the one incident. It is what happens over the course of time. Backbench MPs may ask whether they are really relevant, whether they are important or whether parliament is important.

I argue that this case is another one of a trend of ministers making statements that affect members of parliament. Then we read about it in the papers and we do not have input. It is a concern because of a trend, not just the one isolated incident.

[The Speaker]

I have been asked to reserve on this matter but I will not. I will make a ruling now.

I find that this is not a question of privilege, but I find it extremely regrettable that certain ministerial statements are made outside the House. I, on a few occasions now, and my predecessors have recommended that the government be more respectful of the House. However, perhaps there is a change to be made in the rules of the House because there is nothing in the rules of the House that allow me to enforce such a ruling. As regrettable as some members find these events to be, there is no contempt until and unless the House as a body gives authority to the Speaker to enforce something like this on their behalf.

A case was brought up by the hon. member before. What is involved are the parliamentary precincts. This is a little different from any other thing. Most of the interveners today are members of the Board of Internal Economy. It is my view that this matter should be brought up at the Board of Internal Economy because it deals with the parliamentary precincts. I am sure the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough will have ample opportunity to put his views to this particular board.

Once again, if there is a trend continuing like the one of my sister speaker in the United Kingdom, unless and until there is a specific order of the House this can be done, as you all know, by introduction perhaps through the procedural committee. I make that as a suggestion, but at the very least it should be brought up because it falls within the purview of the authority of the Board of Internal Economy.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a consequence, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.