Debates of Feb. 3rd, 1998

Highways

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer and the minister's concern that he knows that something is wrong. By allowing the $32 million to stay in the deal just reduces the capital cost to Doug Young's company, Maritime Road Development Corporation. It makes it even worse. We know this is wrong. He knows it is wrong. The people know it is wrong. The minister has the power to stop this ongoing multimillion dollar highway robbery. Will he act now and cancel this deal?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we have entered into an agreement with the province of New Brunswick and that agreement will be respected.

There is a federal-provincial task force of deputy transport ministers that is looking into the very question of the application of tolls in private-public partnerships in our highway rebuilding. I have asked that task force to examine this very carefully to ensure that all of the concerns of the hon. member and anyone else about tolls and these arrangements are addressed.

Ice Storm

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Laval West, I have heard nothing but praise for the work of the military personnel who came from all parts of Canada to work unflaggingly to assist the victims of the ice storm.

Can the Minister of National Defence give us a status report on the situation in Quebec, and the role of the armed forces personnel who will remain in place until the last light is back on?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, at the peak of this storm over three million Canadians were affected by it. Life is returning to normal for most of them. However there still are some 11,000 customers in Quebec, some 25,000 people without power. There are some 600 Canadian forces members still there and they will stay there until the lights come on to assist people who are still suffering from this devastation.

At the peak of this storm, 15,800 military personnel were in service to their fellow Canadians. I am sure everybody in this House will agree with me when I say that they did an exceptional job and we are very proud of them.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Justice

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week in Alberta a man was sentenced to 60 days for killing his dog. At the same time two men in Montreal who were convicted of raping a teenage girl were sentenced to 18 months to be served at home. They are walking free all because of a loophole called conditional sentencing which the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada supports.

How does the justice minister explain to the rape victim that her life has less worth than that of a dog?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in response to a question yesterday from one of the member's colleagues, it is a very tragic and difficult circumstance. I have also indicated it is a case of specifics of which I cannot address. This is a matter that my colleague the attorney general of Quebec has chosen to appeal. We must await the outcome of the appeal.

Helicopters

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, part of the saga of the helicopters ended this past January 5, when the Minister of National Defence had the embarrassing task of revealing his government's choice to us: the Cormorant, a perfect clone of the Conservatives' EH-101.

Does the prime minister not acknowledge that it would be advantageous, for the next helicopter contract for replacements to the Sea Kings, for a House committee to be mandated to hold public hearings in order to ensure that the process is clear and transparent?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this was a very open, very transparent, very fair process. It was based upon what our search and rescue needs are. We looked over five years of experience. We asked the very people who operate the equipment, who operate our services as to what their needs were. It was a very open process. This government has taken its responsibility in a proper fashion.

When we get to the next phase, when we deal with the navy helicopters, once again we will look at that in a very responsible fashion. I believe we will be saving the taxpayers a lot more money in that particular case as well.

Banking

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Considering what his next job is possibly to be, he is very concerned about what Canadians are likely thinking of him these days.

I was going to suggest that the Minister of Finance will know that banking, bankers and the banking business touch the lives of virtually every Canadian in this country. Would he do the right thing, not necessarily wait for the task force to bring down a report some months from now, but provide an opportunity for the people of Canada to tell the Minister of Finance through the finance committee hearings across the country what they think of this proposed merger?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I as a minister of this government and in fact this government are certainly open to hear from Canadians on any topic at any time. We are certainly prepared to do so.

The fundamental point that we have made is that we are not going to allow this process to be hijacked by anybody. We are going to insist that the task force complete its schedule on time and that there be a public debate. Only after that will we consider this merger or any other similar merger.

As far as we are concerned, public policy will be made by the government for the benefit and the interests of all Canadians, not any particular institution.

Highways

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

The people of Canada want to know if the Trans-Canada Highway is now up for sale from Victoria, B.C. to St. John's, Newfoundland or is the recently announced toll highway in New Brunswick just another attempt to barricade the maritimes from the rest of Canada?

The recent Doug Young toll highway deal in New Brunswick is highway robbery. Will the minister assure Canadians that this deal will be opened up for debate in this House and if not, why not?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, once we cut through the hyperbole of the hon. member for Saint John there is at least a decent question, which is what is the future way to finance Canada's highways. There was a report before the House of Commons a year or so ago. That report is being looked at as to how the private sector can become involved in the rebuilding of Canada's highway system.

Banking

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it regards the proposed bank merger.

The minister has given his assurance that a final decision will not be taken until the task force reports and that there are full parliamentary hearings on the matter. That means a final decision might not be taken for at least a year.

In view of that delay and in view of the fact that delay and uncertainty is not in anyone's best interest, will the minister refer the specific issue of the proposed bank merger to a parliamentary committee immediately so that the committee can commence immediate hearings?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

No, Mr. Speaker, and the reason is very clear. We are not going to give these two institutions a leg up on any other institutions. Nor are we going to allow public policy to be determined by the particular interests of these two institutions. Public policy is going to be set by the public interest of Canadians as a whole.

Year 2000 Problem

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Statistics Canada, his own agency, has found that SMEs, small and medium size businesses, are unprepared to meet the challenge of the year 2000 problem. What is the minister doing to ensure that we do not have chaos in our small business sector in slightly over 600 days from now?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the task force on year 2000 issued its report entitled “A Call For Action”. It has highlighted the importance of this pressing issue as a national issue for Canadian business, as an international issue as it affects transactions across the border, and indeed as a global issue. It has given a number of recommendations for business to follow.

I am going to ensure that this report is considered by the Standing Committee on Industry at its earliest possible convenience. I am making it available to my counterparts both federally and provincially. Together we need to see that Canadian industry is ready for January 1, 2000.

[The Speaker]

That would bring to a close our question period for today.

I have notice of two points of privilege which I will hear now. The first is from the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington and the second one is from the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

Privilege

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pertaining to what I believe are circumstances or words leading to an act of contempt of Parliament. My remarks relate to that.

Contempt of Parliament as you know, Mr. Speaker, is very analogous to contempt of court. If you consult any authority you will find that the definitions for contempt of Parliament and contempt of court are very similar.

Just to give a very quick example, contempt of Parliament is an offence against the authority and dignity of the House or an act which offends against the authority and dignity of Parliament or against its officers or members.

A contempt of court is any act calculated to embarrass the court or lessens its authority or dignity. Contempt is that which is expressly aimed against the dignity and authority of the court itself in the person of its judges and its officers.

We take contempt of court and contempt of Parliament very seriously and provision is made for severe penalties on those who are found in contempt of court or contempt of Parliament. The reason is that the courts and Parliament are two institutions that must maintain the confidence of the people. The people must believe that the judges act with integrity and that parliamentarians act with integrity and honesty at all times. Contempt provisions exist to make sure that the courts and Parliament are not attacked in a malicious or unfounded fashion.

Indeed, severe penalties are available to judges when for example a newspaper were to accuse a judge of being a hanging judge because it did not agree with the findings of that court. Indeed, jail terms are possible in this case.

So you may be very surprised to learn in that context, Mr. Speaker, that my complaint of contempt of Parliament is aimed at a justice, Mr. Justice Louis Marcel Joyal.

The context of that contempt of Parliament occurred because on December 2 the Minister of Labour rose in this House and announced that he was taking legal steps to fire the chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board. This entire House rose in unanimous support, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, indeed all members.

The chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board took his situation to federal court. He was trying to get an injunction to prevent the legal proceedings that would lead to his firing. His case was heard in federal court before Mr. Justice Joyal.

The next day the Ottawa Citizen came out with a newspaper headline across the front page. It was at the very top, a banner headline. The headline read “Judge slams Weatherill firing”. More interestingly the subheading read “Parliamentarians compared to `people around guillotine' in French Revolution”.

The remarks that I complain about in my address to you as a contempt of Parliament are contained in two paragraphs in this story. I will read them as quickly as I can: “Yesterday, in the Federal Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Louis Marcel Joyal compared such behaviour”—that is the applauding of the decision to take legal action against the chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board—“to the bloody actions of the French Revolution and said it worried him”.

“I'm concerned as a citizen,” Judge Joyal said from the bench, “that with immunity, a minister of the Crown can get up in the House—on the basis of I don't know what—and say, `I'm going to fire this guy,' and everybody is up and cheering. I was thinking of these people around the guillotine. I don't know if I have a right to intervene. But it left a bad taste in my mouth”.

This was not said in evidence. This was a justice musing from the bench. For example, by suggesting that the Minister of Labour uses parliamentary immunity to take an unfair action against a person, he is implying that if he spoke outside the House of Commons the Minister of Labour would be subject to some kind of civil suit, so he is imputing motives to the Minister of Labour. Not only that, he is comparing all of us, not one side or the other side, not backbenchers or frontbenchers, but all of us to the rabble of the French revolution, to people who are not in control of our ability to make good judgments in this House, people who are not in fact representatives of the people.

Mr. Speaker, I feel there is a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament in the judge's remarks. There seems to be three possible courses of action in a situation like this. One is that the House could decide to move a motion of censure. Second, the House could decide to send the issue to committee where it could be debated and appropriate action determined. Finally, the judge could be called to the bar to explain the context and the intention of his remarks. There is something to be said for that.

I did apply to the federal court to get the transcript of his remarks so I could see the context of what he said and so I could see what else he said. Unfortunately the transcripts are not available. Apparently it is a case where the judge has control over the transcripts and a parliamentarian like myself cannot obtain them.

I do not want to suggest that we should be unfair to the judge but I think we should look very seriously at this third option of bringing him to the bar to explain himself. But Mr. Speaker, this is subject to whether you feel there is a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament in the circumstances I have just described.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the concern of the hon. member who has read as we all have the very disturbing comments in the paper. I agree with his conclusions that something should be done. It should be sent to committee or somehow investigated by this House, since this House has been accused by a high court official while sitting on the bench.

I also bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the genesis of this and just a bit of the background is that another independent officer of this House, a representative of the auditor general was the person who originally brought this situation forward. That person too was not openly criticized by the judge but I suppose by inference is part of the rabble the judge refers to since he is also highlighted.

I would also bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that members of the official opposition asked questions during question period which brought this to a head and highlighted this question. I think it was the member for St. Albert who brought this question forward. The Minister of Labour responded after a certain number of questions with the solution that this man must be dismissed.

When motive is impugned, as has already been mentioned, not only to the government but by inference to all of us including the official opposition, including the auditor general who brought forward the case of how ridiculous this situation was and how it needed to be remedied and when the remedy was brought to bear on it we have all been smeared with the comments that we are acting somehow inappropriately.

I think the actions of the minister were appropriate, as were the actions of the official opposition and the auditor general. Certainly I concur with the member's conclusion that this must be investigated and I believe a censure will be forthcoming following that investigation.

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

Very briefly I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take this question of privilege very seriously. I am sure if the reverse obtained and members of Parliament were reflecting on the decisions of a judge with a similar looseness of lips, many people would have been very quick to criticize us for blurring the line between the judiciary and the legislative function, and properly so.

I think an equal requirement is laid upon the judiciary not to make comments which express contempt for members of Parliament or for this House. I would urge you to examine the record in this case. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will be able to obtain what the hon. member who raised the point of privilege was not able to obtain.

In any event, we already know enough of what was said for there to be significant concern. I urge the Chair to reflect on this and come back to the House with a ruling that enables Parliament to protect itself against this kind of comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am generally supportive of the remarks of my friend from Winnipeg—Transcona. However, I would not agree that the same rules apply to parliamentarians in this place as apply to judges.

I do not think there is a reciprocal rule at all. I think we in this House are very free to comment on matters in front of the bench as we see fit. We in this House have a historic immunity that is there for the people of this country. It is there for a reason. It may be correct that judges are restricted. I will get into that in just a moment, but I do not agree we in the House are.

In terms of the matter at hand, I suggest there are at least two perspectives on this event on the remarks of the judge. The first one is that the judge, in making his remarks, appears to have embraced the role or mantle of a citizen and felt that it was in order for him to pass comment.

Any citizen in this country is free to pass comment in words such as those used by the judge outside the courtroom on this House. We are a nation that embraces our freedom. Comments about how we do our business in this place are most appropriate. We love to hear it. Keep those cards and letters coming.

That is one perspective. The judge apparently, in my view, respectfully forgot that he was on the bench. As a judge, he is not free to meddle in the politics of this place. As I understand it, he is not free to meddle in any of the politics of the nation. He is there to do a job on the bench interpreting the law and fact.

Others in here may stand corrected if the facts turn out to be other than those reported. That meddling is worthy of rebuke and I regret the apparently profound ignorance that judge has of the purpose of this place and the role we fill as members of Parliament.

That ignorance is reflected only in his remarks made perhaps by the seat of the pants while on the bench, I do not know. However, those limited back of the envelope comments were a disappointment to me and certainly worthy of note on the record in the House here.

In terms of how the House should respond, I realize this is a matter of privilege. I realize before anything can go further we have an obligation here to put in place a prima facie case that a privilege of the House has been breached, in this case an alleged contempt.

I regret this House would have to take the step of finding a prima facie contempt on the part of a judge. If that were to be the case, I am sure the judge would perhaps want to have looked back and done it differently.

As an alternative to placing on Mr. Speaker the burden of finding there was perhaps a contempt, perhaps it would be appropriate—I offer this to colleagues in the House in the hope that it may be viable—to unanimously agree that the issue is one that has been brought to the attention of the House, is of concern to members of the House, and we would ask the Clerk to refer the matter to the Canadian Judicial Council for comment, if any.

Should the matter be responded to by the council, that the Clerk make the House aware through Mr. Speaker and, if so advised after that, the House deal with the matter, if it is a matter of contempt or otherwise as you may give us your advice on.

I offer as an alternative to invite through the Canadian Judicial Council the judge in question to clarify. If it is not to be viewed as a matter of contempt, we will at least have taken note of it and moved on to other important issues.

[The Speaker]

As always, a matter of privilege is taken very seriously by me. I have some facts placed before me now. Surely one of the alternatives that has been placed here for my consideration, that this matter be brought before the House, has been fulfilled in the sense that members have brought it up and we have discussed it here.

I have been asked to judge whether or not there has been a contempt of this parliament on which we should take some type of action. This is the first time in my memory, having been here some 20-odd years, that such a case has ever arisen.

I would like to get more information for myself. I appreciate the advice and opinions that have been given to me by members from all sides. Perhaps you would permit me to reflect on the whole situation, considering the alternative brought up by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River and considering what has been asked of us by the hon. member who moved the question of privilege a little earlier. I said the member for Hamilton—Wentworth and I stand corrected on that.

I will come back to the House after due deliberation and after I have satisfied myself as to the pertinent facts about this issue. I will take it under advisement and I will return to the House if necessary.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to add my words of appreciation that the member for Wentworth—Burlington raised that question. Since he quite clearly described what constitutes a contempt of the House I will not repeat what he has already said.

I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the actions of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and his officials which I believe constitute a contempt of the House and a contempt of the office and authority of the Speaker. First I will address the issue of contempt of the House.

On January 21, 1998 the minister met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4 tabled at report stage by opposition members had yet to be debated in the House. While the House is still debating how many directors should be farmer elected versus government appointees, the minister was holding meetings as though his bill were already law.

This sort of thing has been complained about in the House a number of times in the past. Each time it is brought to the Speaker's attention, the Speaker has declined to rule in favour of a prima facie question of privilege. However he did leave the door open since these actions are clearly insulting and offensive to this institution and may constitute a contempt in the future.

On October 29, 1997 the member for Fraser Valley brought to the Chair's attention a similar case regarding the Department of Finance. The Chair ruled on the matter on November 6, 1997 and made this statement:

—the Chair acknowledges that this matter is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department are of some concern. The dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices.

I agree with the Speaker that these actions repeated often enough make a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices. I suggest that making a mockery of parliament diminishes the respect due to parliament.

On page 250 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada the following is stated:

—there are actions that, while not directly in a physical way obstructing the House of Commons or the Member, nevertheless obstruct the House in the performance of its functions by diminishing the respect due it.

Accordingly, the actions of the minister and his officials distinctly constitute a contempt of this House.

Further to my argument is the issue of the minister and his officials knowingly and deliberately ignoring a warning from the Speaker. In the ruling of November 6, 1997 the Speaker said: “I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it”.

I believe that these recent actions have reached a new level of indignity, since a minister is no longer just snubbing his nose at backbench members of Parliament but now is also snubbing the Speaker's direction.

On March 21, 1978, at page 3978 of Hansard , the Speaker ruled that in the final analysis, in the areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply: “Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege?—to put it shortly, has the member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should—leave it to the House”.

The previous complaints against the government in these matters were legitimate complaints. The question as to whether or not they constituted a prima facie question of privilege may have given the Speaker some doubt in the past. However, even if doubt existed, there are precedents to support the Speaker's putting the question to the House. You should also consider that this time it is not just a matter of doubt. There has been an additional complaint against a department and the department has acted, despite the warning issued by the Speaker. The Speaker's warning was direct, clear and deliberate. It could not have been any clearer.

On page 225 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada contempt is described as an offence against the authority or dignity of the House. The minister and his officials have gone further and brought the authority and dignity of the Speaker into question.

I ask that you take the advice from the Speaker's ruling of March 21, 1978 and leave this matter to the House because, at a minimum, there must at least be doubt in your mind regarding this issue.

If you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege I am prepared to move the appropriate motion. I think it is high time that this House demonstrate to the ministers and their departments a little democracy over bureaucracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the arguments put forward by my colleague and remind you that while there may not be any precedents for this offence there is no reason why you cannot allow the member's motion to be put to the House.

Erskine May's 21st edition at page 115 states that an offence for contempt “may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence”.

Page 221 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada describes a prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense as one where the evidence on its face, as outlined by the member, is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of the House have been breached or a contempt has even occurred.

The member has demonstrated that the evidence in this case is sufficiently strong.

It may be of help and interest to this House to understand what led to this particular question of privilege.

The Speaker was asked to rule on a similar complaint on March 9, 1990 regarding a pamphlet put out by the government concerning the GST. Again on March 25, 1991 another complaint was launched on a similar matter. These complaints, while worthy of discussion, were not ruled to be prima facie questions of privilege.

A stronger case was made on October 28, 1997 by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. In that instance the Department of Finance went much further and actually started to take action before the bill authorizing the department to act was passed by the House. The member argued that these actions undercut the authority of Parliament.

This led to the Speaker's ruling which contained what I believed to be a strong statement and a strong warning. At that point the Speaker made it clear that the tolerance for such actions was wearing thin.

I argue that the case put forward by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River represents another incremental affront to the House and a case for a prima facie contempt of Parliament against the ministers and their departments has reached the flashpoint.

I do not want to question past rulings regarding complaints of this nature. I recognize that Speakers must always be prudent in determining a prima facie question of privilege. The seriousness of the complaint brought to your attention by my colleague concerns offences that have escalated to the point where inaction will only serve to question the legitimacy of the House, its members and the Speaker.

It is not a time to be prudent because this continued disrespect has already cast a cloud of doubt over the role of this institution. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that we settle this matter once and for all, and I urge you to allow the member to propose his motion.