Debates of Oct. 21st, 1999

Plutonium Imports

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken. Obviously the transportation plans are just now being reviewed and no decision could be taken until Transport Canada makes a determination in this matter.

We have indicated our agreement in principle subject to that technical approval from the Department of Transport. The testing procedure to be conducted at the AECL lab at Chalk River is fully covered by the existing licence granted by the Atomic Energy Control Board, and that licence was granted subject to public hearings.

Interest Rates

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Minister of Finance. Household debt now is at a record 101% of after tax income in this country. We have the highest mortgage rates now in some 42 months.

I wonder if the minister will screw up his courage and make representation to the Bank of Canada to hold the line on interest rates in this country?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, when we took office, Canadian interest rates were 250 basis points across the board higher than the American rates. Today they are at or lower than the American rates. This is because of the very strong fiscal policy that we have brought in, putting our economic house in order and a monetary policy which has kept inflation down. We will continue to follow those policies.

Fisheries

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Contradiction and lack of leadership are consistent traits of the government. It has forced non-violent demonstrators to sign a message to the minister on appropriate material. There are more than 700 names on this message and it is not a contradiction.

What will the minister do to protect the fishers? That is the message.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. That will bring to a close our question period for today.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the government House leader the business for the remainder of this week and the balance of next week as well. I would also like to know if there is room in the agenda for the Nisga'a debate. Will time allocation be necessary or will we have lots of room for the Nisga'a debate?

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will proceed with Bill C-3, the youth justice bill, which hon. members opposite have been calling for so fervently for the last several days. We will see if they are willing to let it go to a parliamentary committee.

Tomorrow, we shall begin debate on third reading of Bill C-6, the electronic commerce bill.

Next Monday, October 25, and Thursday, October 28, shall be allotted days.

On Tuesday, we shall commence debate on second reading of Bill C-9, the Nisga'a legislation, introduced earlier today.

On Wednesday, subject to discussions between the parties, we shall likely begin consideration of Bill C-8, the marine conservation areas bill.

Points Of Order

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to clarify something I said during question period. I made reference to hearings in the province of British Columbia. I misunderstood some information I had been given. These were hearings of a committee of the provincial legislature.

Also, in answering a question on whether the committee of this House would travel to British Columbia to hold hearings, I said that this was a matter for decision by the committee. I should have added that in order to go into effect, such a decision would be subject to consultation among the House leaders and the ultimate approval by this House.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I will deal with the question of privilege which was raised by the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley. She brought up a question of privilege the other day. I said I would hold any decision in abeyance until I heard if there was a response from any other members who wanted to deal with that specific question of privilege which was brought up.

I also said at the time that I would not limit myself to simply a question of privilege but that I would hear her representations also with the possibility that there might be a contempt of parliament. I am looking at this particular intervention by a member on two aspects.

If there are people who want to contribute to this question of privilege, I will hear them. I notice that the government House leader does have something to add on the specifics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley. In her statement she referred to the misconduct as she alleges, and general misuse of authority she further alleges, by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the exercise of extraordinary powers.

She further noted that in her view CSIS deliberately misled the federal court and frustrated her ability to resolve her lawsuit. She alleges that this was done to intimidate her as a member of parliament and it is therefore in her view a breach of privilege and she contends, a contempt of parliament.

It is a matter of public record that this lawsuit by a private litigant stems from the actions taken by an hon. member outside of the House of Commons. In her statement the hon. member in question raised three broad allegations: one, that CSIS improperly collected and disclosed information; two, that CSIS took an active and thereby inappropriate role in the preparation of a lawsuit against the hon. member; and three, that CSIS misused its authority to protect national security and deliberately misled the court, so she said.

With respect to the collection and disclosure of information by CSIS, document 17 of the documents provided by the hon. member indicates at Q.36 that CSIS was collecting public information to maintain an awareness of current events and public issues that may affect its mandated investigative responsibilities. It then disclosed this public—I add public—unclassified information to the plaintiff who, as indicated at Q.10, was a former employee of CSIS.

None of the documentation provided any prima facie evidence, in my view, that the behaviour of CSIS in this case was contrary to law nor motivated by any desire to affect in any way the behaviour of the hon. member, let alone intimidate her, in her capacity as a member of parliament.

I now turn to the express desire of the hon. member to have this matter heard by a committee of this House. I believe that the information provided by the hon. member does not amount to prima facie contempt of the House, nor does it constitute a prima facie breach of privilege. Any actions taken by CSIS during the course of this private lawsuit were completely unrelated to the ability of the hon. member to perform her duties in parliament, I contend.

The hon. member may have a complaint about CSIS and of course with time we will judge whether or not that complaint is valid. However, on the basis of the evidence submitted, I maintain that any such complaint is not within the realm of parliamentary privilege or contempt.

The most appropriate vehicle for an examination of this matter is the recourse mechanism established by parliament for all Canadians who disagree with the conduct of CSIS, including its collection and disclosure of information. It is our view that the far more appropriate course would be for the Security Intelligence Review Committee, better known as SIRC, to examine this matter. This committee was established by parliament to review all complaints against CSIS, including those from members of the House. It is composed of a number of distinguished Canadians, including former members of the House, and a person no less than the former House leader from the opposition party.

In conclusion, I submit that the hon. member has not submitted sufficient evidence to justify a prima facie finding of contempt or breach of privilege but that, if otherwise there is a substantive complaint against CSIS, the proper recourse is to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. We believe this process was established by statute law to protect the rights of all Canadians, including members of parliament and that it ought to be properly followed.

[The Speaker]

As I asserted before, I want to hear direct submissions with regard to this question of privilege. I do not want to get into a debate about what was said or what was interpreted. I will do the interpretation. I will go to the opposition House leader for comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification from the Chair. Was the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley given notice that this was going to come up? She is not here to hear what the members in the House are saying about this issue. Did you make contact with her?

[The Speaker]

In direct response to the question, no. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley was not notified. If the question was posed, this is my statement and not the hon. member's, I will not be taking a decision at this very moment. It is not my intention to take a decision at this moment. I want to review everything that has been said in here with regard to this question of either contempt or privilege.

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

Mr. Speaker, my point is if this were a court of law or any other such tribunal in this nation, the individual would rightly be requested or advised to be there. The government House leader has made statements which to the individual's knowledge may or may not be accurate. I think she has the right to hear them.

[The Speaker]

I offer this as a counterproposal as to what we might do. These statements made in the House not only will be made available to the hon. member who raised the question of privilege or contempt, but she will also have time to study them. I will go this much further. If there is something further she would like to add without entering into a debate per se, but to give me more information on which I could make a decision, then I will wait until I hear from her.

That the hon. member was not notified is my responsibility. I take responsibility for that. It was an error on my part but I did not get the information until just today and I thought it best that we had a response of some kind. I did not know the member would not be here, but that is my responsibility and I take full responsibility for this error on my part.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley to get a hold of you and go through Hansard . I think that is a poor way overall for this to be handled. Suffice it to say that the points the House leader brought up were covered in the documentation, most of which the hon. member gave to the Speaker some time ago.

The hon. member is not protesting the fact that it was private litigation against her. She has never said that there is anything wrong with that, nor should there be. She is not saying that CSIS was able to collect information that was classified or top secret. What the hon. member is saying is that after they got the information together, people at CSIS gave to the plaintiff in a private law suit help. That information was given to this private individual to conduct a private law suit. In other words, people at CSIS helped another individual. They collected newspaper articles. They collected clippings from newscasts. They collected all of this and then, unsolicited, gave it to a plaintiff in a private law suit.

Further, after that the CSIS lawyer was in contact with a private lawyer to a private litigant, the plaintiff in a private case, to help them with their case.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the House leader is coming from, but what he is trying to argue does not jibe at all with the facts that the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley gave you late last week.

[The Speaker]

That is precisely the point, my dear colleagues. I want to review myself what has been said by the hon. member who brought forth either the point of privilege or the point of contempt. I will also look at all of the other interventions in this particular case.

If the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill has something which deals specifically with this point of privilege, I will hear it.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, briefly, I would point out that the government House leader kept saying that there is no evidence, there is no evidence, there is no evidence.

I, and I am sure all members of the House, as well as yourself, Mr. Speaker, have the greatest respect for the hon. House leader of the government. However, as a member of this House I would submit to you that it is not for the House leader to decide what evidence there may or may not be, but for a committee of this House to make that finding.

[The Speaker]

As I said, I will undertake to review everything that has been said and I will get back to the House in due course.

I have received notice of a second question of privilege.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla on a question of privilege with respect to interference of members of this House by Aldege Bellefeuille, who National Defence memos indicate was a special assistant to the Minister of National Defence and to the assistant deputy minister of finance and corporate services at National Defence, and Mr. David Robinson, former executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence.

Mr. Bellefeuille's role at National Defence was to intentionally delay the issuance of responses to access to information requests from members of parliament in order to prepare the minister for question period. Mr. Bellefeuille deliberately delayed this information for reasons that this information was intended for use in parliament by members of the opposition.

Mr. Robinson interfered with the release of access requests by knowingly issuing an instruction to senior officials at the Department of National Defence to not release access requests until communication needs of the minister had been dealt with.

Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at page 70 defines a proceeding in parliament as follows:

Since two of Parliament's constituent elements, the House of Commons and the Senate, were established for the enactment of laws, those events necessarily incidental to the enactment of laws are part of the “proceedings in Parliament”.

However, parliament has also always been a forum to receive petitions and the crown's satisfying the grievances of members before granting supply eventually led to straightforward requests for information. Therefore, the events necessarily incidental to petitions, questions and notices of motions in parliament in the 17th century and today are all events which are part of “proceedings of parliament”.

Since Mr. Bellefeuille and Mr. Robinson intentionally delayed information with the full knowledge that this information would be used in preparation for question period, they are in contempt.

On February 5 I wrote a letter to the information commissioner charging that Mr. Bellefeuille's position was an unwarranted infringement on the rights of Canadians to obtain information through access to information in a timely manner. I made three specific allegations: that Mr. Bellefeuille's position caused delay in obtaining records, was political interference and resulted in improper disclosure of access to information in the applicant's name.

On September 30 I received the results of the information commissioner's inquiry. The investigation took over six months because my allegations contributed to, and I quote from the information commissioner's report, “improvements in access to information policies and processes at National Defence”.

With respect to delay, the information commissioner agreed that Mr. Bellefeuille caused a bottleneck in the access process as he reviewed 95% of all requests by the Canadian public. This process resulted in delays of several months for documents that were otherwise ready to be released.

Additional delays at the public affairs division of National Defence were the result when Mr. Bellefeuille identified the need for a media line.

When sent to the minister's office, delays of several months were noted while the minister was briefed about the upcoming access to information release and possible response lines for the minister in order for him to prepare for questions by the media and opposition members of the House of Commons.

With respect to political interference, in addition to the interference caused by the delays imposed by Mr. Bellefeuille, the information commissioner also concluded that the minister's former executive assistant, David Robinson, issued instructions to “departmental officials not to answer access requests, no matter how late they may be, until the minister's communication needs had been met”.

The information commissioner goes on to say: “In my view, this instruction constituted improper interference with the lawful processing of access requests at National Defence”.

With respect to disclosure of the identities of access requesters, the information commissioner confirmed that Mr. Bellefeuille had routinely informed the Minister of National Defence of the names of access to information requesters that were members of the House. The minister used this information to help prepare for questions. The information commissioner concluded that this was not “a consistent use of this information as defined by paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act”.

The Privacy Act prohibits departments from using or disclosing personal information except for the purpose for which the information was collected. The information commissioner said that the minister should not have the name of an access to information requester to avoid the appearance of political influence or bias against the requester.

The information commissioner said that only the access to information office at the Department of National Defence needs to know the identity of the access requester. The minister's office should only be informed if it is necessary and only if it is necessary to process the request, and definitely not in preparation for question period.

Since I received this response from the information commissioner it is my understanding that the minister has replaced Aldege Bellefeuille with someone else who will perform a similar function as Mr. Bellefeuille.

In conclusion, my question of privilege deals with the deliberate delays in information for the purposes of proceedings in this parliament, in particular the scrutiny of a minister in the House of Commons.

I remind this House that contempt, as Erskine May describes it, is any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either house of parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such house in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results that may be treated as contempt, even though there is no precedent for the offence.

I would argue that deliberately delaying information to a member of parliament obstructs the member and the House in the same manner as omitting information or offering misleading information. The intent is to obstruct and impede members of parliament.

Mr. Speaker, if you so find a prima facie case of contempt of parliament, I would also move an appropriate motion so it can be dealt with.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea as to whether the accusation by the member against an official who previously worked there and no longer does is valid. That in itself does not constitute privilege. If indeed the privacy commissioner, the information commissioner, or both have ruled in this matter, that does not constitute privilege in itself.

I draw the attention of the Speaker to citation 31 of Beauchesne's, which states in part: “The failure of the government”, if there is such a failure, which I do not admit, “to comply with the law”, which again I do not admit, “is not a matter for the Speaker, but should be decided by the courts”.

If he alleges that someone did not obey the Access to Information Act, or even another statute, that does not constitute privilege. There has to be an argument regarding privilege, not as to whether someone obeyed the law per se.

Finally, citation 27 states that a question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament and that it should be dealt with by a motion. Citation 28 states that it is clear that many acts which might offend against the law or the moral sense of the community do not necessarily offend the privileges of the House.

We really are stretching it. If we are going to start saying that every time someone thinks, rightly or wrongly, that an act of parliament, in this case the allegation that something that was judged by an officer of this House, so there was a remedy, constitutes privilege, that is really overstating it.

[The Speaker]

I want hon. members to stick to this question of privilege. Please do not go too far astray. I do not want to get into a debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not get into the debate as to whether this House leader is right and that one is wrong. Let me put a little better perspective on what that one said.

The government really could argue that the minister dealt with the matter, so it is no longer an issue. Or, there is the argument that members have the option to question the minister in question period. Or, it could argue that the official is no longer working with us, so it is no longer a problem.

To address the issue of ministerial responsibility, I draw members' attention to the Speaker's ruling of November 9, 1978 at page 966 of Hansard . The then Speaker said:

—while I do not think there is a procedural significance to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, it appears that we are now embarking on a different course in having the House, through a question of privilege, reach around the minister and examine directly the conduct of an official.

The Speaker went on to say: “It seems to me that it is not a procedural matter”.

The Speaker did not consider ministerial responsibility as a consideration when he determined that there was a prima facie question of privilege in that case. There is no procedural significance in this case either. The gist of the question of privilege today is that someone deliberately impeded a member of parliament from carrying out his duties. That is really what this is about.

The former official committed an act which constitutes a prima facie question of privilege and that act must be considered by the House. The House must determine if further action is necessary to protect itself from this sort of activity in the future. We should not leave the impression that interfering with opposition members of parliament is a career advancing move.

Last week we had a member of parliament on her feet seeking protection from the House and the activities of CSIS. If members are being watched, intimidated or interfered with, and information is deliberately withheld from them, then what is next in the House, Mr. Speaker? That is why we have come to you with the appeal. That is all I have to add.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will, in my own small way, attempt to frame this matter of privilege that has been put forward.

The hon. member knows and all members know that they have the ability in the House to request documents through established procedures in the House. In this particular case, it appears that the member did not so request. The member chose to rely on the provisions of the Access to Information Act, an act and a procedure set up by parliament for all Canadians.

In electing to use the access to information process, the member or any member of the House who uses that process are essentially using their shoes as a citizen to make access requests to government. They are simply making access requests as citizens not as members of parliament.

There may have been a dysfunction in the process. I am advised that from time to time there are dysfunctions and there may well have been in this case. If there was a dysfunction in the process, a delay or whatever, I do not think it is correct for a member here to say that a dysfunction in a procedure becomes a matter of privilege just because he or she is a member of parliament. That would allow the House procedures inside this place to be cast out throughout the whole country. Every time there was a dysfunction on a Bell telephone line involving a member of parliament it would essentially be a case of privilege.

I would not want to deal with the issue of just what happened with the access request in this case or in other cases. There may well be a real dysfunction and the commissioner may wish to advise parliament. It may be a real issue for the House, but in my view it would be important, before it becomes a matter of privilege, that a direct parliamentary function be directly impaired by the problem that the member brings to the House's attention.

[The Speaker]

I thank members for their interventions. I will review what has been said and I will come back to the House with a decision.

We will now proceed to tributes for a former Speaker of this House, Mr. Alan Macnaughton, who was the Speaker of the House from 1963 to 1965.