Debates of March 28th, 2000

Gasoline Pricing

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, to our great surprise, the Minister of Industry announced in this House that the provincial governments are the ones who can do something about gasoline prices.

If the gasoline pricing issue is a provincial matter, can the minister tell us why the federal government has commissioned a $600,000 study, which will be of no use in the end?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I merely said that the provincial governments can regulate retail sales prices, that is all. It is true, and I believe the hon. member agrees.

But if he wants information on markets and market interrelationships, he will have to wait for the study.

Fisheries

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last April the auditor general of Canada indicated that the DFO was managing the shellfish industry in the same manner that it managed the groundfish industry prior to the cod collapse in 1992, which, by the way, cost the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars.

Now disturbing reports out of Newfoundland show that the fragile snow crab industry is in serious decline.

First the west coast salmon, the east coast salmon and the cod, and now the snow crabs off Newfoundland.

Will the minister heed the advice of his own scientists and put measures in place to protect the resource, or will he again ignore the advice of his own scientists and allow the crab to go the way of the cod?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand the commercial fishery of Newfoundland.

When we came to power in 1993, the landed value of the commercial fishery was $208 million. At the end of 1999 the landed value of the commercial fishery in Newfoundland was $515 million. That is a 148% increase in the time that we have been in power. Liberal times are good times.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's wharfs have been neglected by the government for years.

Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans prepared to commit in the House today to provide emergency funding to repair the wharves between Port Lorne and Delaps Cove which were severely damaged by a severe winter storm on January 21st?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, Saturday and Sunday I had the opportunity to visit the maritimes. I had the opportunity to personally visit those wharfs that were damaged by the storm. In fact, if the hon. member had been following our actions he would know that I have already announced money to fix some of the wharves that were damaged by the storm.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Shri T. Baalu, Minister of Environment and Forests of India.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during Oral Question Period, I asked the Minister of Public Works a question about a problem relating to a land sale in Brampton. The minister spoke of a report that would provide answers to a variety of questions.

I would like to ask the minister to table that report in the House, for it would surely enlighten all hon. members. The matter has raised a lot of questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services informed this House of the existence of a report but did not quote from it.

According to Marleau and Montpetit or Beauchesne, the standing orders of this House do not require a document to be tabled if it has not been quoted, and to my knowledge it was not.

[The Speaker]

I will look at the blues to see what was said. If I recall correctly, the report was not quoted from, but I will look at what was said and will get back to the House on it if necessary.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for London North Centre on Friday, March 17, 2000. I would like to thank the member for having drawn this matter to the attention of the House. I would also like to than the hon. member for Lakeland, the hon. government House leader and other members for their assistance in bringing the facts of this situation before the House.

The hon. member for London North Centre, who chairs the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, indicated that the hon. member for Lakeland had, in his opinion, breached the privileges of all members by the premature disclosure of a draft report from the committee. This disclosure was made by way of a press conference which the hon. member for Lakeland held on March 16 using facilities provided by parliament after issuing a media advisory using CPAC and the internal communication services of the House. Subsequently, the charges against the hon. member for Lakeland were repeated in the first report of the citizenship and immigration committee tabled on March 21.

In responding to these charges on March 21, the hon. member for Lakeland raised a number of issues. He pointed out that there had been a deliberate decision of the committee at its meeting of March 2 to undertake the study of its draft report on refugee determination and illegal immigrants in public session. A motion to that effect can be found in the committee's minutes of proceedings of that date. The hon. member held that, while the meetings at which the draft report was considered may have actually been held in camera, the in camera nature of the meeting itself was contrary to an express decision of the committee. In protesting what he took to be an irregular proceeding of the committee, he made reference to an earlier ruling of the Chair given on October 9, 1997, in which all committees were cautioned that care is necessary in laying out the manner in which draft reports will be dealt with.

I want to say, first, that it is not the role of the Speaker to oversee the internal conduct of committees. Committees are masters of their own proceedings, and with that freedom goes the responsibility to see that they carry out their work in conformity with the appropriate rules and practices of this House.

The hon. member for Lakeland may well have a legitimate grievance with the manner in which the citizenship and immigration committee has conducted its affairs. However, when members disagree with decisions made by committee chairs, either tacitly or explicitly, our rules provide avenues either to appeal those decisions or to air those concerns openly in the committee before colleagues.

I have a different role to play. When a committee feels that a situation is so irregular that it must be reported to the House then this is where I am called on. As I mentioned earlier, a report on this incident was tabled by the chairman of the citizenship and immigration committee on March 21. The hon. member for Lakeland has stated that he quite consciously and deliberately held a press conference for the purpose of making public the contents of the draft report. He felt that he was entitled to take such action because the document was discussed by the committee during a meeting which he believed ought properly to have been a public meeting. Nonetheless, the minutes of the proceedings of the committee for March 16, 2000 clearly indicate that the meeting was held in camera. Similarly, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration rejects the member's view for its states unequivocally in its first report:

The members of the committee considered the matter...and felt that their privileges had been breached and that the in camera process had been jeopardized because of the disclosure by the member for Lakeland, Alberta.

As Speaker, I am not called upon to judge the manner in which the committee reversed its earlier decision and, since the committee has seen fit to report this incident to the House, then I, as Speaker, I must take very seriously the committee's complaint.

Our rules are clear on the matter of the divulgation of a draft report. At page 884 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice members will find the following statement of principle:

Committee reports must be presented to the House before they can be released to the public.

It is further stated on the same page:

Even when a report is adopted in public session, the report itself is considered confidential until it has actually been presented in the House.

The Chair appreciates that this rule may, at times, prove inconvenient to some hon. members or to committees themselves and that there are divergent views on how committees should conduct their business when deliberating about the text of a report to the House. However, as you Speaker, I am bound by the rules as they exist. In the present case, I have concluded that I have no alternative but to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

I invite the hon. member for London North Centre to put his motion.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you having taken the time to look at this very serious matter. On behalf of myself and the members of the committee, I move:

That the matter of the premature disclosure of the committee report by the member for Lakeland be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated your earlier ruling on this matter. The one question that was raised which I do not believe you answered in your ruling, and perhaps you could clarify it for me, was the question of whether a standing committee of the House of Commons could go into camera without moving a motion that it is going in camera.

It does seem odd to me. I do not know who has the power to decree such a thing or to make it retroactive. It seems to me that it does require a motion to move in camera. Otherwise, I do not know how those decisions come about if it is not by a motion.

[The Speaker]

That will be decided by the committee itself, whether indeed they did move into camera according to procedures that were developed at that time. That will be answered when we are in committee.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a totally different matter. Perhaps I could ask for the indulgence of the House to dispose of the following matter. There have been discussions that—

[The Speaker]

Order, please. We will wait for that. The hon. member for Lakeland has 20 minutes for debate and 10 minutes for questions and answers.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions that I would like to put. I would appreciate it if members of the committee could answer these concerns at some time, whether it be in debate in the House in the question and answer session after my presentation or in committee at a future date. There are some very interesting points which should be answered and should be responded to.

The first point raised by my colleague, the House leader for the Canadian Alliance, is the question of whether the committee acted properly, by the rules to which the committee has agreed to have a vote before going in camera. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker that did not happen in this case. There was no vote to go in camera and therefore the procedure was all wrong.

It seems interesting that the committee and the chair of the committee can just throw aside the democratic process on a whim, it seems, ignore the process agreed to by the committee and go ahead in a dictatorial fashion to have this discussion of the report in camera. Somehow that does not seem like anything they are particularly concerned about.

On what I believed to be very honest consideration of the matter, I decided that because of the improper procedure, because it was in the minutes of the March 2 meeting that in fact this report would be discussed in public. Because of these things I thought that meeting should be considered to be a public meeting.

I am quite concerned that the chair of the committee would have the nerve to stand in the House of Commons and express concern about what I did, believing that this was a public document and calling a press conference, not leaking this document to the media in the way the Liberals leaked the documents.

We brought points of privilege to you, Mr. Speaker, on several occasions expressing our concern that reports which were confidential reports without a doubt were leaked by Liberal members. They could only have been leaked by Liberal members. We have done this time and again. In those situations, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that we should not do these things but there was nothing you could really do about it.

In this case the chair of the committee has the audacity to come to the House of Commons and say that I am wrong because I did this publicly and not in a sneaky fashion. They routinely leak public documents. Most of the budget was leaked. We knew what was in the finance minister's federal budget before it was actually presented in the House, because it was leaked piece by piece by piece. This has become completely routine, and I do not think that is right.

Nor did I have any intention of doing anything wrong. The last thing I would want to do is anything which would show a lack of respect for the House, for the committee and for the rules of these institutions. That is the last thing I would do.

You have ruled, and I respect your ruling, that under these circumstances you have no choice but to put this back into the hands of the committee. I respect that, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you have examined the issue and I trust your word on that.

I would encourage the chair of the committee and other members to respond to this apparent contradiction that somehow it is okay to routinely leak documents which are clearly confidential, which is what Liberal MPs have done again and again. It is undeniable. I did it openly and honestly in a press conference. I presented a report which was marked confidential, but which I truly believed could not possibly be considered confidential. Because I did that in a public fashion, somehow I am in breach of the rules of the House in some way. I am interested in hearing the committee explain this. It is a very interesting contradiction, and I am looking forward to that.

As I said in my presentation to the House last week, if you look, Mr. Speaker, at the minutes of the March 2 meeting—and I tabled a copy of those minutes at that time—it said clearly in the minutes that it was agreed that this report would be discussed in a public meeting of committee, not in camera. I take the decision of the committee on matters like that quite seriously.

Also in Hansard , as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the committee did agree to have a vote of the committee before ever going in camera. That did not happen in this case. Furthermore, at the very meeting before the committee went in camera, I asked the chair of the committee to allow me to put forth a motion to reaffirm it was the rules of the committee that we have a vote before going in camera.

The chair would not allow the motion but said “You do not have to worry about that. We all know that and I respect that”, or something to that effect. That can be seen in the Hansard of that March 2 meeting as well.

It takes an awful lot of nerve for the chair of the committee and for the members of the committee to come to the House claiming that I have done what is wrong. I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that this should go back to the committee, but I am saying the committee should decide that in fact, no, I have not acted improperly.

Yet they are saying I did, when they completely ignore the rules of the committee which have been reconfirmed and reaffirmed by the committee at the very meeting before the committee went improperly in camera.

I am extremely concerned by the loss of democratic process in this institution, not just in committee. In these committees the process and the lack of respect for democracy, for the rules, the very rules that are agreed to, to govern the committees, are ignored routinely. I do not find that to be a laughing matter. I take that as a serious matter.

If we look at the House generally, the lack of respect for the democratic process has become routine. I have many people back home telling me that they see our House of Commons behaving more like an elected dictatorship than a democratic body meant to govern a country. They say that because they understand the Prime Minister and a few key people make the decisions, the big decisions, in governing the country.

Do backbenchers and MPs in the governing party have influence on the Prime Minister's decisions? I would suggest very little to none. The only influence seems to be what can be exerted by the members of opposition parties through the use of the media. We can take an issue which we think is an important issue, go to the media and get coverage. Through that method public reaction can come against the government. That seems to be the only way that we can have an effect. It is the only way that any member of parliament, other than the Prime Minister and his little group, have any effect on what goes on in the House. I am extremely concerned about that, and I have expressed my concern about that before.

Let us look at the issue of time allocation. It was a very few years ago when time allocation or closure in the House was something that was used rarely. Since this government took office in 1993, how many times would you think, Mr. Speaker, that time allocation and closure have been used in the House of Commons? It is approaching 60 times.

Look at the last 10 bills that have passed through the House and see how many times time allocation has been used to end debate prematurely on legislation. How many times do you think in the last 10 pieces of legislation which have passed in the House? A majority of cases.

This has become absolutely routine. Debate is not allowed in this place the way we expect it to be allowed on extremely important pieces of legislation like the new elections bill. The very act that will govern elections in this country, Bill C-2, passed through the use of time allocation. Debate ended after a very few hours. It is completely unacceptable. The official opposition, which is supposed to be given ample time to present our case to try to have an impact on legislation, was given only a few hours of debate on this important bill.

This has become routine. It is shameful. That is why it amazes me that the chair of this committee and the members of this committee would have the nerve to accuse me of doing something improper.

Look at the relative importance of these two issues. What was my great crime? My great crime was presenting in a public way, not in a sneaky way as they do, to the media a document which I believe truly was a public document. I believe I was doing nothing wrong. I was not willing to do it in a sneaky way, as the Liberals have done in so many cases. That is my great crime.

At the very meeting after it was agreed that this report would be discussed in public, after it was undeniably reaffirmed that this committee could only go in camera, into secret meeting, after a vote passed committee, in fact the committee went in camera without a vote. Does that sound like democracy? Does that sound like respecting rules of the committee? It just is not.

Look at the relative importance of the two wrongdoings here. You have ruled there was wrongdoing and I respect that, Mr. Speaker. At the time I believed there was not. Yet the chair knew he was violating the very rules of the committee when he took that committee into secret meeting in camera without having a vote of the committee and against the minutes as written in the document I tabled from the March 2 meeting.

Because I understand that you have now put this into the hands of the committee, Mr. Speaker, I ask the committee to seriously consider the relative importance of the violations that have taken place. As I suggested to you, Mr. Speaker—I asked you to rule on it and I understand that you could not—I would like the committee now to consider whether the chair of the committee should be removed from his position as chair.

To me, violating the very rules which were agreed on to govern the committee is a serious breach. There is no way that could have been done without the chair knowing exactly what he was doing, because I made a point of that at the very meeting before and Hansard will show this. I made a point of that in a way which could not be easily forgotten. It was that important I felt I should do that and that is what I did.

Mr. Speaker, I fully respect your decision. There are many more points I could make. I am sure there will be more debate on this, but I would like to ask the chair and the members of the committee after contemplating this issue, to deal with the issue of the actions of the chair. I would like them to seriously consider removing the chair from his position in the committee and I would like the committee to move on from there.

Last year with the former chair of the committee, we had a committee which I would say was completely dysfunctional. It just was not working. With the new chair we had a committee which I thought functioned quite well. We went into what was an honest discussion at committee dealing with the very sensitive issue of illegal migration into this country.

Mr. Speaker, you know what happened this summer. About 600 people came into the country illegally by boat. Every year around 23,000 people come into the country illegally through our airports, border crossings and by boat.

The committee debated. Witnesses came from across the country to deal with this extremely important issue. A Conservative member on the committee asked for assurance that the work of the committee would be considered in drafting the new immigration act. That assurance was given.

I received a leaked draft of the new act along with a schedule which showed that the new act went to the provinces for approval on February 25 and that the minister was going to approve the new act on March 7. The committee report which was supposed to be considered in the new act was not tabled until last week.

So there we were. Witnesses came to the committee in good faith and presented their thoughts on the issue of illegal migration. How are they to feel now knowing that their thoughts were not even considered in the new act?

The new act was not put together in a few weeks. It had to have been virtually a done deal back when we started with this issue before committee. Certainly the report tabled last week in no way could be considered in the new act because the act was a done deal at least three weeks before that. That is when I received my leaked copy of the new act.

Those witnesses gave of their time, their efforts, their money. They came to committee and presented their views believing they might actually have an impact on the new act. How must they feel knowing that they have been used by the committee? They have been used by the committee because what they reported to committee was completely ignored. The legislation was in place before the committee even reported.

That shows an incredible disrespect for Canadians, for people who care enough about an issue. In this case it is an issue which is important to the security of our country, illegal migration. They cared enough that they came and they spoke. I listened to them. Other committee members listened to them. They were completely ignored. How must they feel?

It is sad. When Canadians see these things happening they must completely lose their respect for politicians, for the House of Commons and for the committees of the House of Commons. They cannot possibly do anything but become cynical about the whole political process.

It is a sad thing when Canadians have that reinforced in the way they did by the chair and the committee. They ignored the committee rules and decided to discuss the committee report, a draft document, in secret and only then did they report it to the House.

The committee is functioning poorly now. At the previous meetings we were not even discussing a draft document. We were only discussing the witnesses we had heard and the committee went in camera. In other words it discussed the issue in secret. The reason had to be because the Liberals on the committee, a majority of government members who have control, were afraid that something they might say would be heard by their constituents and would reflect poorly on them.

Mr. Speaker, I see that I have no more time to debate this issue. I am looking for debate from others who feel that this is an important issue. I am looking in particular for a response from the chair of the committee. I also hope others will get involved in the debate because what debate in the House could possibly be more important than a debate on respecting the democratic process and respecting the rules of the House and of the committee? What else could be more important than that? The issue is that the chair of the committee and the committee did not respect the rules.

I appreciate having had the time to present my views. I look forward to hearing the views of other members.

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that any committee draft report is marked confidential in big letters. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We all respect and have a clear understanding that we must honour such confidentiality. Mr. Speaker indicated exactly that in his ruling.

As an all-party committee, we have worked very hard but the hon. member repeatedly broke the rules and walked out on a very important discussion. That is disgusting. It was without any concern for his duty and his responsibility. The hon. member not only breached the trust of all committee members with his disrespectful attitude but with purposeful disregard he held a press conference. I ask the hon. member how could he have such nerve and disregard for his duty as a member of our committee?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question. She again expresses the concern about the document marked confidential.

I explained why I believe the document was not confidential. The committee had improperly gone in camera. I would like to ask the member about her lack of respect for the rules of the committee. I assume she was at the meeting where the committee went in camera. At that time the member did not say to the chair, “It is improper that we are going in camera. We discussed this at the last meeting”. Why did she not do that? Unfortunately I was not at that meeting. I was away on other matters of parliamentary business.

She talked about my not being at some of the meetings. I challenge her to have my attendance records at those committees compared with those of any other member of the committee. I have taken part in most of the meetings of the committee. I have been involved. I took part in the debate.

When I found out that a copy of the new immigration act had been leaked, I realized we had all been taken for fools. That bothered me. My co-operation at that point dwindled somewhat because this is a serious issue.

I would like to ask the member why at that committee she did not stand and say, “This is improper. I am going to have no part of it. I am going to respect the rules of the committee. I am not going to allow you, Mr. Chair, to go in camera on this issue without a vote. Mr. Chair, I am not going to allow you to go against the minutes of that March 2 meeting and now decide to have the discussion on the draft report in camera, in secret”.

I would like to ask the member why she has so little respect for the rules that she did not stop that.

[The Speaker]

That is out of order. We are still on questions and comments of the hon. member for Lakeland.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question.

I heard the member say that he was of the very strong conviction that it was a public meeting. He said that was decided by a majority vote of the committee. I am asking him to confirm that was the case. Also, has he looked at the records of the committee and was there a motion subsequent to that which rescinded, reversed or changed that?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I would like to clarify that in fact the committee had agreed I believe it was at the start of the fall session pursuant to the normal rules of committees, that before going in camera there would be a vote. That should not have to be reconfirmed by a committee, but I have seen those rules breached often enough that I wanted it to be reconfirmed. My memory says this was done back in the fall but I cannot say for sure. However it was reconfirmed when the committee went in camera when we were discussing not even a draft of the report, but just what the witnesses had said.

That meeting improperly went in camera. I made a point of bringing that issue before the committee and asking why we were in camera and that we should go public. There was no vote held to have the committee go in camera. Therefore it should have been a public meeting. Through my pressure the committee agreed that the meeting was improperly in camera and it was going to be made a public meeting and it was.

It was at that time I tabled a motion that before going in camera again there will be a vote of committee members. The Chair brushed it aside and said there was no need for that, that we all knew the rules. At the very next meeting the chair took the committee improperly in camera. I was not at that meeting. I was on other parliamentary business. All of the members of the committee allowed it to happen. Not one member raised his or her voice to stop it. That is improper.

The other thing from that meeting is the minutes of the meeting said that the draft report was to be discussed publicly. I would argue that issue should not even be a particularly important one because the committee had agreed not to go in camera without a vote and there was no vote.

I brought the improper procedure before the committee. I said there was no way we should be in camera that we should be holding the meetings in the open. The chair continued to call it an in camera meeting. That is when I decided it was improper. The rules were not being respected. It was not truly an in camera meeting and therefore the discussion should not be considered to be confidential.

That was my decision at the time. It was a decision which I made considering the evidence before me. I would suggest that it was a good decision. I would be interested to hear from other members of the committee. I would like them to answer the question as to why they did not prevent the committee from improperly going in camera and why they did not ask for a vote. I would suggest that one of the reasons might be that there is seldom quorum at this committee. We cannot hold a vote when there is no quorum. We often have three or four Liberal members at committee out of a possible seven or eight. The attendance of the Liberal members is not exactly something I would think they would want to brag about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the member's remarks.

First, the reason there was no quorum at the time I tried to move my motion suggesting that the minutes of the committee come out of in camera and be published as soon as the report was tabled was because the Reform MPs had left the committee. In fact, every time I tried to do something with respect to the minutes being in camera, I could not move the motion because the member opposite and his colleagues had left the committee.

I ask the member opposite how he can take this position, especially with me who has always argued that committees should not be in camera if they can possibly not be in camera. In this case the chairman explained very clearly that it had to be in camera up until the time the report was released. That was fair but we all agreed that the minutes could be released as soon as the report was released. Would that not have satisfied the member?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the member says is absolutely incorrect. At the meeting where the chair improperly went in camera, I was not even in attendance. How could I have left? To my knowledge, I never left the committee when a member was trying to present such a motion. There was never any talk of such a motion. I invite the member to review the record because that is absolutely not what happened.