Debates of May 27th, 1998

Taxation

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand why the hon. member would not want to discuss his party's history. A $42 billion deficit is now down to zero. Unemployment of 11.5% is now down to 8.4%. Consumer confidence is up. Retail confidence is up. Business investment is surging. That is today. It was not the case six years ago.

Calgary Declaration

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that yesterday Ontario became the eighth province to adopt the Calgary Declaration.

The Bloc Quebecois, however, is trying to make us believe that few Canadians support the declaration.

My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. What is the significance of this declaration, this vote in favour of the declaration and the message it sends to all Canadians?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in supporting the Calgary Declaration, Ontario's legislative assembly and the leaders of the three major Ontario parties expressed very forcefully the feelings of the people of Ontario towards those of Quebec. The three leaders spoke as great Canadians, as real statesmen.

Prime Minister Harris said “If we work together, Ontarians and Quebeckers can certainly keep this country united”.

Opposition leader, Dalton McGuinty, said:

“We believe that it is better to grow together than to grow apart”.

Finally, the leader of the NDP, Howard Hampton—

[The Speaker]

The member for Yorkton—Melville.

The Judiciary

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the ruling of the Ontario court of appeal last month in the Rosenberg case, the judges changed the meaning of the term spouse in the federal Income Tax Act.

Does the justice minister believe it is right for unelected judges to make changes like this, or should those changes be made by this parliament, by the elected representatives of the people of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, while I know it is hard for the official opposition to accept this fact, under the Constitution of this country the judiciary has an important constitutional role to play. In the Rosenberg case the judiciary was doing what it was constitutionally obligated to do, interpret and apply the law.

Tobacco Legislation

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one year after its promises in the last election campaign, all signs are that the government is finally getting ready to announce what it plans to do to offset the impact of its tobacco legislation on sports and cultural events.

On the eve of the Montreal Grand Prix, and in light of the many questions we have asked, will the minister undertake to make his announcements himself right here, out of respect for the House, particularly as he will probably need our support to get his future amendments through?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I will introduce the amendments when the government is ready.

Employment Insurance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance program belongs to the workers of this country. The surplus currently amounts to $17 billion.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Does he agree with me that this $17 billion surplus is, in fact, money stolen from the workers?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of the auditor general, the employment insurance fund has been consolidated with the government's financial statements since 1986.

Having said that, as the hon. member knows full well, this fund is used by my colleague to finance the transitional jobs fund. That has been made quite clear.

We are using it, but we have also reduced EI premiums since we came to office. Lower interest rates, which benefit all Canadians, lower taxes and investment in transfer payments to the provinces clearly show—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Fundy—Royal.

The Environment

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the environment commissioner's report on the government's mishandling of the environment clearly stated that if the performance of the government does not improve, the environment and the health of Canadians will be damaged. It is a sad situation when there are more than six traffic officers to patrol Parliament Hill looking for parking violations while this government has only one environmental assessment officer for the province of New Brunswick.

Does the Prime Minister want to be known as the Prime Minister of parking lots or as a Prime Minister with a genuine interest in preserving Canada's environment?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important priority for this government to look after its environment and to improve it where there are deficiencies.

We have made commitments to make sure Canadians have clean air and clean water. We have policies and regulations in place. The people in my a department work as a team. People are designated a certain position, but we work as a team, and we do enforce our regulations and our policies.

Privilege

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege. I have given the Chair a copy of the grievance that I bring to the attention of the House and I have also contacted the office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government to indicate to him that I wanted to rise today on a question of privilege.

In the past, in your wisdom, you have offered guidance on similar matters and I would hope for the same today. Needless to say, if you determine that I do have a question of privilege I am willing to move the necessary motion to bring this matter to the appropriate parliamentary committee.

It is a long and honourable custom in the House that members of parliament are to provide other members factual information and only the truth. It is part of the law of privilege that a member of this House in the performance of his or her duties can expect the truth from ministers of the crown, even if the truth should be that ministers cannot or will not answer the question raised.

Either we as members of parliament on all sides are entitled to rest secure in the knowledge that we are going to receive the truth in ministerial replies or we are not. Parliament is dependent upon ministers providing truthful information so that they and the government as a whole can be held accountable. This doctrine is the hub around which much of our parliamentary life revolves and lies behind our existing practices of parliamentary disclosure of official information.

In essence, it means that ministers have to provide truthful information about the exercise of their responsibilities in order that an account can be rendered in parliament.

Over the years different mechanisms have been developed for the disclosure of information, parliamentary Order Paper questions being a prime example of the mechanism for eliciting factual information.

A failure to provide to the House truthful information is considered a grave offence. After a careful review of various precedents, in 1978 Speaker Jerome summarized in the form of a question what I think is still the convention of this House. I quote:

Does that lead to the conclusion that, by virtue of an act or omission, the House or a member has directly or indirectly been impeded in the performance of its functions or his duty, or that there has been a tendency to produce such a result? If I find so, then I really have no choice but to find, prima facie, that a contempt has been committed.

Conventions governing responses to written parliamentary questions have been established to govern the disclosure of information by government to parliament. Such conventions have recognized that a balance must be struck between the legitimate requirements of government to have a certain degree of privacy for the proper conduct of its business and the need to ensure that parliament has the factual information which it requires to scrutinize the executive and hold ministers to account.

It is right for members and for the Chair to ask themselves if sanctioning the tabling of obviously false information to parliamentary questions strengthens or weakens our parliamentary institutions. A parliamentary democracy cannot function unless parliamentarians are permitted to know what their government is up to.

An approach to written parliamentary questions that does not respect the fundamental feature of our system will undermine rather than strengthen Canadian parliamentary democracy.

Where does it leave us if we disregard the fundamental principles of ministerial responsibility?

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will remind honourable members that to assume that any member of the House ever states anything but the truth would be in itself a breach of the standing orders of this House.

I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that I placed Question No. 33 on the Order Paper last October. The answers given by the government to Question No. 33 appear to be, in whole or in part, simply false. I am concerned that the government's response hinders and obstructs the work of parliament and its members and has the effect of diminishing respect for this House.

The question inquired into what involvement ministers of the crown had in an issue that arose in 1995. Sport fishing lodges in July and August 1995 refused to comply with the requirements of the Fisheries Act. The act required lodges to provide accurate and timely catch data to the department of fisheries so it could manage the chinook fishery on an almost daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, 1995 was a year much like 1998. In 1995 chinook were expected to return to spawn in dangerously low numbers. In 1998 it is coho.

The government states in its response to parts (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Question No. 33 that no minister of the crown or their staff other than the fisheries minister and his staff were involved. Departmental documents suggest otherwise.

The department of fisheries has provided me, under the Access to Information Act, documents that go to the credibility and veracity of the claim that ministers of the crown and their staff were not involved. The documents refer to ministerial involvement. The documents have fisheries managers complaining of political pressure. The documents reveal a meeting or meetings between a minister of the crown from Victoria and his political staff and the lodge owners. The documents detail a possible threat from the Minister of Industry to go to the Prime Minister to have fisheries officers stand back while the Oak Bay Marine Group flouted the law and let conservation be damned.

Mr. Speaker, you have been very patient with me and I will quickly cite specifics.

A July 21, 1995 briefing note prepared for and given to the minister, the member for Victoria, states:

Meeting with David Anderson's office, the Sport Fishing Institute and representatives from Queen Charlotte Island lodge operators regarding management ventures implemented in Areas 1 and 2.

Another note, dated July 25, reads:

The attached briefing note was used to brief Randy Pettipas of Minister Anderson's office.

This indicates that responses to (a), (b) and (f) are in whole or in part false.

Another document reveals the fisheries minister's office demanding ammunition to fend off the Minister of Industry who was threatening to go to the Prime Minister. It reads:

Judd Buchanan has convinced John Manley's office that our actions regarding Queen Charlotte Island sports fishery may be punitive and unjustified. Manley's office and Buchanan are suggesting that they might take this issue directly to the Prime Minister.

The political aid acting in the name of the minister of fisheries concluded his demand to the regional director general for the Pacific region with:

We would like this information by the end of this afternoon. Please contact me as soon as possible to let me know what we might expect.

Finally, in reply to Question No. 33(d), the government told the House that no ministers or their staff participated in the Pacific salmon management teleconference calls once the sport fishing lodges refused to supply vital catch data in July and August.

Part (d) asked if ministers of the crown or their staff participated in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Pacific salmon management teleconference calls in 1995 which considered the refusal of the lodges, including the Oak Bay Marine Group, to provide such data.

Departmental documents made available by the department of fisheries under the Access to Information Act indicate that the current minister of fisheries, then in another portfolio and a minister of the crown, did through his political staff participate in these management conference calls at a time when the lodges were refusing to provide the department of fisheries with the necessary catch data such that the department could manage the fishery to protect fragile chinook stocks.

I quote from a document entitled “Speaking Points for the Deputy Minister”:

On August 15, [1995] the bi-weekly salmon management conference call between departmental officials was extended to include participation from—Minister Tobin's office and Mark Cameron, Minister Anderson's office.

Again, the response given to the House to part (d) of Question No. 33 is incorrect.

The current minister of fisheries, then and now the lead minister from British Columbia, and a spokesman in cabinet for the Sport Fishing Institute, a lobby organization of lodge owners, and for Bob Wright, the largest lodge operator on the west coast, did through a member of his political staff participate in these management discussions once the lodges had refused to obey the requirements of the Fisheries Act.

Mr. Speaker, in a question of privilege on the accuracy of responses to written questions by a previous minister of fisheries, Mr. Tobin, on December 13, 1994 you stated:

I do not in any way minimize the seriousness of this question of privilege raised—He surely has a grievance which perhaps can be corrected without proceeding to a complete point of privilege. I hope the hon. member for Delta and perhaps the member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans might come together to resolve this particular grievance. I want the House to understand that I do take this very seriously when a member feels that he or she is in any way impeded from performing his or her duties as members of Parliament. I would give this assurance that I will return to the member from Delta if indeed he does not get a response to his grievance in discussions with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

In conclusion, I am concerned that such obviously false responses should be allowed to stand on the parliamentary record.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is more an issue of debate, rather than one which is otherwise. Hon. members opposite, both in oral and in written questions, have differences in what they believe to be accurate or otherwise.

The information I have as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is that the information provided by my hon. colleague, the minister of fisheries, is in fact accurate. If the member feels that he has new information that indicates otherwise and if he wants to write to us to seek further clarification, there is certainly nothing that stops him from doing so.

Clearly, there is no intention either on the part of the hon. minister of fisheries, myself or anyone else in the government to provide information that is anything other than correct. We still believe that the information that was tabled in the House of Commons is correct.

Finally, the facts which we brought were gathered after considerable research. That does not mean that anyone is beyond making a mistake, but the information that we have now is that the information is accurate.

I do not believe that it is necessary for the member across to whom we listened very patiently, notwithstanding his heckling, to continue to make accusations against others.

If the issue was one of making accusations with regard to one's adherence to the Fisheries Act, I could heckle a few from my vantage point across to him.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that on certain questions of privilege or on certain points of information there is always a chance we could debate such issues as the efficacy of some policy or whatever, but this question of privilege does not deal with that.

The question of privilege brought forth by the hon. member deals specifically with the contradiction between an answer to a question on the order paper and information gathered through access to information channels.

When you review this question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will see that one is in complete contradiction to the other. It is not a matter of debate of policy or a debate on the issues. That would be just a political argument.

I would argue there is enough question, based on the evidence when you look at it, that you would allow the hon. member to put the appropriate question, which is to refer it to a committee to have it properly examined.

I realize the government member says that we can write to him. Of course that is what the question on the order paper was already about.

There is enough question now as to the answer and the veracity of the answer that I would hope a committee of parliament could examine it to see what is at the bottom of these two obviously conflicting arguments. One is from access to information and the other is from the answer to the question on the order paper.

[The Speaker]

Of course I want to listen to any question of privilege and I do listen attentively. From what I heard today this is a dispute of the facts.

We have an hon. member saying he put a question in and he received an answer. The answer he received does not coincide with the facts that he believes he has.

We have the hon. government House leader standing up and saying that to the best knowledge of whoever prepared this and to his best knowledge these are the facts as they are stated. You put the Speaker in a position where he becomes an ombudsman for a fact determination.

You mentioned a ruling that I made in 1994. I ruled also as reported at page 9426 of Hansard on February 9, 1995 when I said:

This is not the first time there have been disputes over replies to order paper questions or over the content of documents tabled by a minister. For example, I refer hon. members to three rulings, the first on February 28, 1983 at pages 23278-9 of the Debates ; the second on February 21, 1990 at page 8618; the third on May 15, 1991 at page 100. I must point out, however, that in none of these cases was the matter found to be prima facie.

Speaker Fraser noted on May 15, 1991 in his ruling:

The hon. member has raised an issue which is not an unusual kind of issue to raise. The hon. member is not satisfied with the response given. The difficulty that is always with the Chair in these cases is that there are often very great differences of interpretation on answers given. It is not a question of privilege. It is a question of disagreement over certain facts and answers that were given.

The hon. member will know that I did listen to his arguments. I listened to the opposition whip and I listened to the government House leader. In my view this is surely a dispute over the facts but it is not a question of privilege.

Points Of Order

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period the member for Edmonton North asked a question that you ruled was out of order.

I felt that the question dealt with the administration of public funds. It dealt with the role of a citizen, not an elected official, not a member of the Senate, but a regular Canadian citizen who was using public facilities for—

[The Speaker]

Any time I intervene on a question I wait as long as I can to hear what the question is. I even give it a pretty long preamble before I get there.

In this case I ruled the question was out of order. I believe it was. I would refer the hon. member to citations 409 and 410 of Beauchesne's.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to request the unanimous consent of the House to table the agreement in principle proposed by the Quebec government to the federal government on the issue of the millennium scholarships, and the motion unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly.

[The Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to allow the hon. member to table the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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 eight petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee of Human Resources and Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today of presenting four reports.

First I would like to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Industry relating to Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Industry relating to a recommendation to the House on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.