Debates of Feb. 18th, 1998

Aboriginal Affairs

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs.

Grassroots aboriginals are angry and upset that the minister's office leaks confidential letters and yet withholds information which might embarrass the department.

We have an internal departmental memo which directs a senior bureaucrat to withhold information requested by a band member under access to information because it might make the department of Indian affairs look bad.

Did the minister direct her bureaucrats to withhold this information? If not, did this directive come from her? Where did it come from?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, following the question from the hon. member yesterday I looked into the circumstances surrounding this letter.

First of all, it is two years old. Second, the contents of the memo are not considered to be protected. Third, the name of the requester is not in the letter.

The letter in question is, in fact, context and only context about the information request.

The letter should not and did not affect the decision to release the information the requester was entitled to.

Finally, the truth is that the bottom line of all this is that the requester got the information he asked for.

Sponsorship Of Sports And Cultural Events

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec minister of finance recently announced that $12 million in tobacco tax revenues would be used to subsidize sports and cultural events in Quebec.

In order to avoid having sports and cultural events suffer because of the fight against smoking, when will the Minister of Health finally introduce the long promised amendments?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we are working on them and we are getting there. We will act when we are ready.

Point Of Order

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you as the defender of parliamentary rights and protector of the right of everyone in this parliament to speak, not only in this House, but wherever our work as members takes us.

The members of the opposition were prevented from doing their work properly by various decisions taken by the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. This is the subject of my remarks to you.

The chair of the Standing Committe on Finance categorically and systematically rejected a request by my colleague the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who wanted to hear from witnesses in committee in order to better understand the entire scope of clause 241 of Bill C-28. The chair refused any witnesses.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot also asked to have the ethics commissioner testify. The committee chair, contrary to all expectations and plans, shortened the appearance of the ethics counsellor, on his own initiative.

The third point I would like to raise with you, and which I consider quite extraordinary, is the fact that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance rejected the request of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for a special committee, a sub-committee, at least, to hear witnesses and clarify the matter of the apparent conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance.

It is extraordinary, in our opinion, for a committee chair to use his powers, which should serve to enable parliamentarians to do their work, to systematically prevent the opposition from obtaining any information on this matter.

For the good of the Minister of Finance, if the opposition can query a number of specialists in order to clarify this important and complex situation, it seems to me the committee should be allowed to do its job.

I therefore appeal to you as the Speaker of the House and ultimate chair of all committees so that parliamentarians may be heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to read a portion of the proceedings of the committee sitting in question, or at least a summary of that sitting. There are two points that should be brought to the attention of the Chair.

First of all, the fact that a decision by the chair of a committee may be appealed. An appeal can be made to the committee as a whole. Parliamentarians are free to do so, of course, but ultimately at that level whom a committee will or will not hear is under the committee's jurisdiction.

As for procedure, I would remind you of what it says in Beauchesne's sixth edition:

Article 760(3) states:

The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedures.

This is from the Journals of December 4, 1973.

I recall having the occasion when I was in opposition of rising in the House to plead a similar case in the late 1980s which I lost.

I also want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of article 760(4) which states:

On one occasion, after a grievance was raised in the House concerning procedure in a committee—

Again, we are talking about procedure here, not the matter of whether or not someone likes the quality of the decision, which is entirely different. It continues:

—the Speaker then undertook to write to all committee chairmen pointing out that when a grievance is not resolved satisfactorily in committee it often results in the time of the House being taken—

And so on. Then again there is not an instance where the Speaker personally intervened in that.

The two points I want to summarize are: First, this is not an issue of procedure per se; in other words whether someone has been aggrieved because he or she was not allowed to speak in committee, whether the chair went beyond the usual control the chair has over committee and so on. One is making a qualitative judgment here in terms of how the chair of the committee ruled.

Second, even if it had been a matter of procedure, His Honour has been constant in the past by saying that he—and your predecessors, Sir—has not seen fit to undertake to overrule such decisions before.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is a very serious issue.

I will simply say that the government House leader pointed out that when he was in opposition he understood the necessity of having the Speaker at that time intervening in a situation. He subsequently lost his case but I think he appreciates the point. He has taken it to heart.

I simply want to make the same point. In this case the allegations that are being made are extraordinarily serious. If they are not dealt with in an appropriate way, it will darken the reputation of the House. I believe the Speaker is charged with the responsibility of upholding the reputation of the House of Commons.

In this case I believe the seriousness of the allegations warrant the intervention of the Speaker.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I listened to the government House leader. I think there has been some slight error in interpretation.

The reason that members of the opposition parties in the finance committee jointly introduced a motion asking for the opportunity to delve into the issue further was in an effort to clear any hint of wrongdoing by the Minister of Finance.

We recognize that for us to do our work in the House of Commons and in the finance committee the reputation of the Minister of Finance is paramount. Allegations have been made. Interpretations of various comments have been made, the fact that there may be a conflict of interest with the Minister of Finance on the eve of the budget.

This is an effort not to question necessarily the procedure in the finance committee but simply to find a way to clear the air once and for all so that there is no hint that a possible conflict of interest may occur with the Minister of Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We support this point of order. We feel this process requires transparency, not just for the opposition but for the government and the minister.

One of the Liberal promises was that the ethics counsellor would be reporting to parliament as opposed to simply the prime minister. In lieu of that, the committee needs to have the ability to investigate the matter.

For instance, the commissioner talked to CSL to find what the tax implications would be. Perhaps the committee would be able to call tax experts to find out what the implications would be.

The point is that all Canadians will be best served by a transparent process in the hands of parliamentarians at the subcommittee level.

[The Speaker]

This point has come up a number of times since I have been in the House. My predecessors in this chair have consistently ruled that the committees are masters of their own work.

I would point out with respect that members of the committee can bring this forth in the committee proper and the committee will decide what it wants to do with it. If a report is brought back to the House then I believe we could entertain the motions or objections such as those that are brought forth.

Unless and until I get direction from the House of Commons that the policies in this regard are to be changed, I would rule at this time that the committee is master of its own destiny and that if a report comes back to the House, at that time I will have a look at it.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to a document that was quoted from by the minister of fisheries.

I first raised this matter yesterday after question period. I based my point of order on Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 495, which reads:

A Minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House without being prepared to lay it on the Table.

The government House leader argued that the minister did not actually quote from the document and therefore did not have to table the document. I have reviewed the videotape and it clearly shows the minister quoting from the document. I have reviewed Hansard which indicates the exact statement in question in quotation marks.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the authority of the House stems from the powers granted it by the Constitution, our standing orders and our longstanding practices. I would point out that any attempt to deliberately omit information from the House by disobeying the practice as outlined in citation 495 of Beauchesne's sixth edition would be considered a contempt of parliament.

The reason why the minister may be reluctant to table the document containing the accusation against me is because that document is a lie.

[The Speaker]

I believe the member mentioned the hon. minister of fisheries. Is that correct?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I owe the minister of fisheries an apology. I intended to say the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is going to get up in the House and declare that people happen to be lying, at least he should understand who he is talking about. I feel offended by this hon. member and I find his apology totally inadequate.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, with regard to the use of the word “lie”, of course the word “lie” in itself is not unparliamentary. I did not hear the hon. member for Medicine Hat say a minister lied. If I understand correctly, although I do not have the precise words, the member stated that the document was a lie. That is a lot different from a member lying.

I want to put that particular part to one side. With regard to the hon. member misnaming a minister, that is regrettable. I could understand the minister of fisheries reacting to it. However, the hon. member has clarified that he was talking specifically about the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is that correct?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

That being the case, yesterday I do not know that the minister quoted from a letter. I do not know that he quoted necessarily from a document. I believe that the hon. leader of the government in the House did make a statement on this yesterday. At that time the hon. government House leader said that if this was a letter or a document it would be tabled in the House. I might have misunderstood. However, he also said that if this was a briefing note, which is different from a document as I see it, then that would not be brought into the House.

How do we get to the bottom of this? Evidently the Minister of Veterans Affairs is not here so he cannot tell us whether he quoted from a document or not.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, it is rather difficult for me to give a decision and to bring us through this situation if I am being interrupted. I would ask you to please hold your comments until at least we get the situation as clarified as we can.

I was saying that the minister is not here. I put this question to the government House leader. Does he have direct and specific information about this document?

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

Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that I would undertake to look into the request made by the hon. member and of course I will. I do not expect to delay this at all. Had he contacted me informally before, I would have done my best to have it for him today. To the extent that it can be available for the next sitting of the House it will with the same conditions that I stipulated yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I would like to raise something else in relation to what the member said. It is the reference to citation 485 of Beauchesne's regarding unparliamentary language.

It states quite clearly that language, whenever it is conditional or hypothetical, does not make unparliamentary language acceptable. For someone to suggest in any way that the minister may have been not telling the truth in terms of quoting from a document or that he did not have a document and that in itself was not true, and so on, is the same as saying the minister himself was making statements which were untrue. To make it conditional like that does not make it any more acceptable.

I invite Mr. Speaker to check the parliamentary records, the blues as we refer to them, later to see whether that language is appropriate even with the conditionality that was placed on it today.

[The Speaker]

I am going to deal with the first point and then I will come back to the second point the hon. government House leader brings up.

I have Hansard from yesterday. I am looking at page 4020 and I do not see in this any quotation marks. That could be an error on the part of Hansard . I wonder if the hon. member could wait until we have the Minister of Veterans Affairs here. We will question him. If indeed he did quote from a document, I am sure he will tell us. Then we will proceed from there.

I want to go to the other point of order brought up by the hon. government House leader. I did not hear, either in the tone or the words that were said, the allegations that the hon. government House leader said were uttered to him in this House.

However, I will take it upon myself to review specifically what was said. I will review the tapes, the television tapes also, to satisfy myself that such was not the case. It is not parliamentary for us to accuse each other of telling untruths. My understanding is that there was no accusation made of an individual. However, I will review it and I will come back to the House.

Does the hon. member have more information to give us?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the quotation marks were on the original blues that were sent out. They have subsequently been removed. I simply point that out.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request that when you review Hansard and the movie rights to this saga, perhaps you could also look at what the minister for ACOA said in the House with the tapes. That is a telling tale in itself.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member is right, this is becoming a saga. I have given an undertaking to this House. I will fulfill that undertaking and I will get back to the House.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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