Debates of Sept. 28th, 1998

Presence In Gallery

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

That is why I called it a point of order.

Points Of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister in his response just a moment ago to our member accused him of abusing his authority in the House by directing a question to the justice minister.

Mr. Speaker, I think you realize in the chair that our member has a responsibility to direct a question, as you so said last Thursday in the House, to the government or to a member of the government. The Deputy Prime Minister is completely incorrect in his response and should apologize to the member.

[The Speaker]

I do not want to get into a debate about this whole thing, but perhaps on both sides we tend to exaggerate a little bit. I know we are just coming back.

I am going to permit the government House leader to intervene on this matter, but I do not want to enlarge it too much.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House and the Chair will be fully cognizant of the fact that under Beauchesne's it is specifically prohibited for any member to ask a minister a question regarding regional responsibility. On several occasions last week this occurred and in a tangential way there are always attempts to bring this back.

The Minister of Justice, as the minister from Alberta, or I as a minister from Ontario, cannot answer questions in our capacities as regional ministers. This is quite clear in Beauchesne's and it is equally clear that the Deputy Prime Minister was perfectly correct in bringing this matter to the attention of the House today.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, as you are all aware, when a question is posed it is posed to the government. Ministers cannot be queried on their political responsibilities; it is their ministerial responsibilities. That is why I said at the beginning that the preamble to the question itself was questionable.

Colleagues, we have quite a leeway in asking questions but sometimes you force your Speaker, you force me, to intervene before I get to the question.

The point of order was brought up. I am going to rule it was not a point of order, and we will let this matter rest at this time.

I am going to go to the House leader of the opposition. I have notice of a point of privilege and I will hear what he has to say about that.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege today in regard to the conduct of a member of the House.

My specific charge is the improper use of public funds by the member for Saint-Maurice.

My information as of 12.06 today is that the amount of money that I am going to speak about has not been paid back.

Since I view this charge or any charge against another member to be very serious, I withheld bringing this matter up until now because I needed to confirm all the facts which I have completed this morning.

Before I get into the details of the charge I need to briefly comment on the authority and the responsibility of the House in this regard. This charge, while separate in itself, does involve other jurisdictions such as the Board of Internal Economy and the Treasury Board.

I will submit—

[The Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member is very much aware of what he is doing here. What he is doing is charging that a criminal act, an illegal act, has taken place by one of the members of this House. He has of course the option, not under a point of privilege but under a substantive motion, to bring this charge to the House.

I want to make it clear and I want to understand what the member is doing. Is the member bringing a specific charge, a substantive motion, then, against one of the members of this House? Could he answer that question now?

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

Mr. Speaker, my charge was clear. It is the improper use of public funds.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, we are not dealing here with a question of privilege. We are dealing with a substantive charge against another member of this House.

If that is what the hon. member is doing, I am going to listen a bit more, but a motion should be brought to this House. I want to make it clear that this is not a question of privilege that we are dealing with now. We are dealing with something altogether different, and I want to know that the hon. member understands that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my statement. As I was going to say at the end of my presentation—and I am prepared with the motion here—I was prepared to say if you rule this to be a prima facie question I am prepared to move the appropriate motion. I think if I can go on then you can further make an assessment if you so wish. Do you instruct me to proceed?

[The Speaker]

At this point I am going to instruct you to proceed, but I want you to know that this is not a question of privilege we are dealing with. I want to hear what you have to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the details of this charge, I need to briefly comment on the authority and the responsibility of the House in this regard.

This charge, while separate in itself, does involve other jurisdictions such as the Board of Internal Economy and the Treasury Board. I will submit precedents demonstrating that a breach of the rules under another jurisdiction embodies a breach of a standard of behaviour for members of parliament that Speakers have considered in the past when deciding prima facie questions of privilege.

In addition, I will argue that the jurisdiction of the House over its members and its right to impose discipline is absolute and exclusive, and that the conduct of members that touch on or is part of another jurisdiction does not preclude the House from taking action.

But first I will present the details of my charge against the member for Saint-Maurice. It has been brought to my attention and to the attention of the public by journalist Sean Durkan in articles published in the Ottawa Sun on August 2 and August 5, 1998, that the Prime Minister used taxpayers' money to pay campaign workers which helped him secure a victory in his riding in the last election and the election before that.

The records of Elections Canada, which I have here, will say the Prime Minister's office paid campaign workers $43,389 with taxpayer money. This is more money than the average candidate gets to spend on the total of their campaigns.

Mr. Durkan reported in the Ottawa Sun that an official in the Prime Minister's office confirmed that this money was spent deliberately. In the same article there is confirmation from Treasury Board that its guidelines for cabinet ministers regarding paid staff during election campaigns apply to the Prime Minister and that they were breached by the Prime Minister. These guidelines can be found on page 19 at section 3.5.6 of the document entitled “Guidelines for Ministers' Offices” dated June 6, 1997.

The national director of the Liberal Party confirmed with the Sun that the Prime Minister kept about 15 of his political staff on the public payroll during last spring's election campaign and also paid campaign workers with public funds when he led the opposition in 1993.

I reviewed the rules set out by the Board of Internal Economy regarding this issue and it is clear that the Prime Minister breached the rules set out by the Board of Internal Economy.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of my presentation I will provide you with a copy of this rule, copies of the news articles and the relevant sections from the records of Elections Canada and the guidelines from Treasury Board. I will now address why and how this House should take up this issue.

I refer to page 115 of Erskine May's 21st edition, page 192 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada and to a Speaker's ruling from Hansard of October 29, 1980. These references describe acts which may constitute contempt as having no limits and how it would be impossible to discount any act or omission as a contempt just because there were no specific precedents for that act or omission.

Since there do not need to be clear guidelines in the way of the usual precedents, a Speaker, in deciding these matters, may have to consider some other standard of measure. I will present examples where it is apparent that Speakers use the standards of behaviour found and set out in the common law as guidelines for appropriate behaviour for members of parliament.

In relation to the responsibility of this House and the conduct of members, I will establish a parallel between the common law and the laws of the Board of Internal Economy and the Treasury Board.

There are many examples where the House involved itself in matters relating to members of parliament and the law. In many of these cases the Speaker ruled in favour of a prima facie question of privilege allowing the House to consider whether or not the violation of the law was offensive and inappropriate behaviour for a member of parliament.

My point is not that the violation of these laws has anything to do with the jurisdiction of the House but they represent standards which the Speaker can use to determine that a charge against another member is valid enough to be considered prima facie.

With that in mind, I refer to page 103 of the 21st edition of Erskine May:

The two Houses are enabled to safeguard and enforce their necessary authority without the compromise or delay to which recourse to the ordinary courts would give rise.

Citation 46 of Beauchesne's sixth edition tells the story of the House taking action against a member for an old conviction of forgery with respect to the granting of timber limits.

In 1891, for instance, there was the case of Thomas McGreevy who was charged with scandals in the public works department. The House was satisfied that there was enough evidence against Mr. McGreevy and took action before the courts came to a conclusion.

In 1995 the member for Charlesbourg was charged by another member for sedition even though the matter had been raised in the courts. The Speaker in ruling that the matter was a prima facie case of privilege was not concerned with the details of the Criminal Code nor the court case itself. The Speaker was influenced by the fact that sedition is a serious charge and considered as evidence the facts contained in the letter sent to the Canadian military from the member for Charlesbourg.

In both the 1995 case and this 1998 case there were reports in the media complaining of an activity of the members and a concern that nothing can or will be done under the law. Another similarity is that in both cases the evidence was conclusive.

In the 1995 case the House took up the matter independently from the common law and independent from any guidelines set out by any other body. It is my hope that the House will do the same with this 1998 case against the Prime Minister.

As stated earlier, the conduct of a member measured against the standard of appropriate behaviour set out by a law often adds sufficient weight to the argument against the accused member, resulting in the Speaker's ruling in favour of a prima facie question of privilege.

Other references setting standards can be found in the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 238. It states that while the standing orders refer only to offering money for the promotion of any matter before parliament, the House would treat equally severely the acceptance of money by a member for anything a member may do. In the final analysis “the House of Commons may set whatever standard it sees fit in respect to the conduct of a member”.

The Board of Internal Economy has set a standard for all members of parliament when it created bylaw 305. The Treasury Board has set the same standard for cabinet ministers in guideline 3.5.6. Both these bodies consider the use of public money in the way the Prime Minister has used public money as improper.

The Prime Minister, in authorizing and accepting public money to help him win an election, violated a serious bylaw and a guideline, bringing into question his integrity as a member of parliament. The Speaker must take into account the violation of this bylaw and the guidelines of the Treasury Board in his determination as to the validity of this charge.

The other matter that must be addressed is that this violation has been reported in the media and the impression left in the public's mind is that one of the members of this House has acted against the law and because of his position is exempt from the law. The article of August 5 says: “Guess what folks? If our Prime Minister doesn't like the rules, he can break them and there's nothing we can do about it”.

In addition, there is the impression left in the minds of the members of this House that the Prime Minister is more equal than other members with respect to their privileges and their standard of conduct.

I believe that both these impressions are serious enough on their own merit to be considered by this House on a question of privilege. Such impressions left unchallenged cast a dark shadow over this institution. Accordingly, I believe this House must do three things.

First, it must invoke consequences against the member for Saint-Maurice for his improper use of public funds. Second, it must clarify the impression left in the public's mind that a member of this House is above the law. Third, it must return confidence to all members of this House that the Prime Minister or any other member does not enjoy special privileges above those enjoyed by the rest of the members of this House with respect to their conduct as members of parliament.

Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only a few minutes to respond to the issue raised—

[The Speaker]

At this point at least, we do not know what the specific charge is.

Before I go to the government House leader, I would like to have the hon. House leader of the opposition either give me a copy or cite the specific charge that he is going to make against another member of this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move a motion. The documents that I just read to you contain therein all the facts as I have them. The motion I am prepared to move is that the matter of the member for Saint-Maurice paying campaign workers with public funds, as reported in the Ottawa Sun on August 2 and 5, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I refer you to Beauchesne's 6th edition. I am seeking guidance as I go on with this. I refer to citation 50:

In any case where the propriety of a Member's actions is brought into question, a specific charge must be made. The Speaker will not allow the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure to examine the actions and statements of a Member relating to the question to report generally on the matter.

The motion is that the matter of the member for Saint-Maurice paying campaign workers with public funds as reported in the Ottawa Sun on August 2 and 5, 1998 be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I do not view this to be a specific enough charge and I would invite the hon. House leader of the opposition to make a specific charge against one of our sitting members.

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

Mr. Speaker, my notes are at the table, but when I started speaking I believe my comment was the improper use of public funds which is a violation of Treasury Board. It is a violation of the Board of Internal Economy rules and the Elections Canada Act. It is pretty specific.

[The Speaker]

What I require from the hon. House leader of the opposition is a specific charge, a specific motion to be written out and put in my hands, not a referral to a committee. I want it in writing so that I will know specifically what the hon. member is referring to.

If he wants to do that and that is his wish, I will listen to what the government House leader has to say, if the opposition House leader wants to proceed in this fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that you are seeking further information from the opposition House leader. I will not comment on that. I am sure those arrangements can be made at another time.

If I understood the allegation, it was described as the matter of. I believe what we are referring to is an allegation as opposed to the matter of. In other words, nothing here has been proved nor acknowledged to be as the hon. member has said.

If I understand correctly what has been alleged is that the Prime Minister's exempt staff disobeyed Treasury Board guidelines which require that staffers working on a campaign must do so on their own time and not during office hours. I believe the member also alleged that the rules applying to the Board of Internal Economy for the employees of the House of Commons also apply to others who are not employees of the House of Commons. I believe that is the second point he raised. In view of the imprecision, it has to be gleaned that way.

First, I suggest that the salaries of ministerial staffers are paid for by government funds. That is why the guidelines provide that staffers who work part time on campaigns must do so outside regular office hours. There is difficulty in ascertaining what are off-hours particularly in offices such as the Prime Minister's given that people work very long hours and the hours of work vary on a daily basis. Staffers as we know, especially those of us who have seen how hard the Prime Minister works, may work at all hours of the day and evening and sometimes even later than that.

To ensure complete transparency accounts followed the Chief Electoral Officer's guidelines concerning campaign workers. The value and the number of hours worked by staffers on the Liberal campaign on a part time basis were estimated. This sum was accurately recorded in the party's election expense return as a contribution to the Liberal party. The Liberal Party then settled the cost of these salaries with the Government of Canada and paid the amount. To remove any doubt, salaries have been paid back to the government so that no one would actually make the allegation that has been made today, or at least if it was made, it would be totally invalid.

The Treasury Board guidelines referred to earlier today, albeit somewhat indirectly as the Chair has just reminded us, say “Should a member of the minister's or secretary of state's exempt staff decide to become actively involved on a full time basis in a federal, provincial or territorial election or by-election, the member is required to take leave without pay or resign their position”.

The following sentences are the operative ones: “If a member becomes engaged in campaign activities on a part time basis, their involvement must be on their own time and not during regular office hours. No vacation leave or any other form of leave with pay will be permitted for election purposes”.

The Elections Canada Act provides that labour donated to a campaign which is paid for from a source other than the registered party must be recorded as a contribution to the registered party.

The Liberal Party returns for the June 2, 1997 general election, and those can be proven, included a contribution of $43,389 which represents the salaries of several of the Prime Minister's staff who worked part time on the Liberal Party's campaign. The cost was correctly recorded as a contribution. We did this in order to be more prudent than was absolutely necessary.

However, to address the fact that the salaries of such workers were paid by the Government of Canada and not the Liberal Party of Canada at that time, the Liberal Party subsequently reimbursed the government for the cost of the salaries. In other words, not only were the rules strictly observed, but we went overboard to ensure that nothing would be seen, albeit incorrectly, as being untoward. The allegations made by the member are incorrect.

Finally, the member informs us that even if contempt is not defined and not restrictive, the Speaker should rule nonetheless that this issue is one of contempt of the House. It is correct that contempt is not strictly defined in the rules but that does not mean that Mr. Speaker nor the House should get themselves involved every time someone from the newspapers alleges there has been what he considers to be a breach of the law, even when such is not a breach of the law in particular.

[The Speaker]

I have heard allegations at this time but I am loath to proceed unless I have a specific charge in front of me. At this point unless and until I have the specific charge in front of me so that I can have a look at it, I am not saying that this action would be terminated here. I am saying that I want to see the specific charge that is going to be made. I invite the hon. opposition House leader to submit that to me.

In the absence of that, I will let this point move on for now. If necessary, I will come back to it. But first I want to see the very specific charge. For the time being this matter is held in abeyance.

[An hon. member]

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

Does the member have a point of order outside of what we are discussing?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

It is on this very issue.

[The Speaker]

Then we are not going to address this right now.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Although we charged him with contempt there was no specific charge?