Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2001

Points of Order

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

I beg to disagree with those who claim otherwise, mainly the hon. member who is heckling now. I believe these officials will do their best to ensure that committee transcripts are made available as soon as possible. If any additional resources are required, I , together with the other House leaders, will take every measure necessary to make them available. We obviously cannot delay the passage of the legislation.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We have been waiting for two and a half months now.

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

The hon. member is complaining that his own colleagues have delayed the bill in committee. That is unfortunate. I am sure he can take it up at caucus with them.

We intend on our side to do everything we can so that Canadians can be afforded the protection of the legislation. We will work together with other House leaders to make resources available. I am sorry to say we cannot delay report stage and third reading of the bill; it is just too important.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear of the implication made by the government House leader and I ask the Speaker for direction.

If the material is not prepared and completed by 2 p.m. tomorrow, is it the Speaker's intention to allow the rules of the House to be breached, or is it the intention of the Speaker to enforce the rules of the House and to say that if the government does not meet the 2 p.m. deadline then this must pass into the next sitting day?

[The Speaker]

I cannot tell what the hon. member is referring to, which deadline is he talking about? If amendments are submitted by 2 p.m. obviously they are in order. I do not think there has been a request to table amendments later than that, that I have heard yet. I am not clear exactly what it is the right hon. member is asking.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my lack of, may I say, clarity. The question is: if the amendments are not tabled by 2 p.m., what is the reaction of the Speaker in that case? What is the status of the House and what is the status of the bill?

[The Speaker]

The rules of the House are clear that amendments must be prepared and tabled with the legislative branch by 2 p.m. tomorrow. I am advised that the blues are now available. They were available as of 11.30 this morning. Those documents are now available to members.

I am also told that the reprint of the bill will be available at 4 o'clock this afternoon. It had 110 amendments, I believe, in the committee. It is being worked on as we speak and it will be available at 4 o'clock. Members will have that available and can draft amendments and submit them before 2 p.m. tomorrow. After 2 o'clock I presume that with consent members could introduce other amendments, but it is not for the Chair to prejudge that matter. We will wait to see what happens.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very good point today. On behalf of our party I want to support the position that this is much too important a bill, where there has been great questioning of civil liberties for Canadians, for the Canadian public not to have an opportunity to respond.

Could we have assurances, if that information is not ready by 4 o'clock and is not available to Canadians, that there will be a delay in allowing the bill to proceed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe you were quite clear when you indicated to us that the blues had been sent to hon. members' offices, so the point raised by the hon. member is now moot.

Additionally I am also informed that every member of the committee was sent the information by e-mail. I am also told, in addition to what Mr. Speaker has just told us, that the transcript is now on the Internet as of a little while ago. It appears that the entire point is now moot.

[The Speaker]

I do not think we will continue with the debate on this matter. The rules are clear. The government has indicated what it intends to call. If hon. members want to have a discussion about it, there are the usual channels for carrying on those discussions and I would invite them to continue the matter there.

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. member for St. Albert on Thursday, November 1, 2001, relating to two items in the supplementary estimates: vote 10 for $50 million for the sustainable development technology fund under Environment Canada and vote 10 also for $50 million for the sustainable development technology fund under Natural Resources Canada.

In his submission the hon. member for St. Albert argued that these votes should be ruled out of order for two reasons. First, in his view, the government expenditures of $100 million funding related to the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology constituted a multi-year appropriation. Second, he contended that there had already been a transfer of money for these purposes without parliamentary approval.

In support of his position the member referred to the auditor general's observations in the Public Accounts of Canada 2000-01 tabled in the House on September 27, 2001, in which she expressed serious concerns with the events surrounding these grants.

I wish to thank the hon. member for St. Albert for raising this matter and I also want to acknowledge the contribution of the hon. government House leader on this subject.

At the outset, I want to draw the attention of the House not only to the seriousness of this question but also to its complexity. I ask the House to bear with me as I review the events which have led us to the current situation.

Let me begin with a chronology of events that may be helpful.

The initial announcement of funds to support sustainable development technology was made in the budget statement presented by the hon. Minister of Finance on February 28, 2000. The enabling legislation for that initiative, Bill C-46, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development, died on the order paper at the dissolution of the 36th parliament.

At the beginning of this parliament on February 2, a new bill, Bill C-4 was introduced and given first reading.

Bill C-4 provides, in addition to the provisions of the original Bill C-46, that the government may designate a corporation already incorporated under part two of the Canada Corporations Act to continue as the Canadian Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology. A not for profit corporation of this type was established in March of this year. In early April, Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada each granted $25 million to this not for profit corporation using funds transferred from the treasury board contingencies vote for this year.

On June 14 Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology, received royal assent. Thus Bill C-4 became law prior to the tabling of the supplementary estimates (A) so there need be no concern that an attempt is being made here to legislate through an appropriation.

The Chair can find no specific request under our supply process for authority to make the two payments for the corporation. In other words, neither the main estimates 2001-02 nor interim supply mention these particular grants. This is a significant fact and we will return to it later.

That being said, and this is a technical point but one of key importance, the money transferred to Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada to make these payments was taken from the treasury board contingencies vote for this year, so there is no question of a multi-year appropriation in the case before us. That answers the hon. member for St. Albert's first concern.

However, we are still left to deal with the allegation that no approval has been given for the original expenditures in this case. I said a moment ago that I could find no authority for the original grants totalling $50 million in either the main estimates 2001-02 or in interim supply. Let us then return to what is being requested in the supplementary estimates (A) 2001-02 tabled in the House on November 1.

At page 58 of the supplementary estimates, vote 10 under the environment department requests $50 million for the sustainable development technology fund. A note indicates that funds in the amount of $25 million were advanced from the treasury board contingencies vote to provide temporary funding for this program. A similar entry for the same program is listed at page 115 under vote 10 of the natural resources department. A total of $100 million is therefore being sought for the sustainable development technology fund.

Two questions arise.

The first question is the confusion between the “Fund” as referred to in Supplementary Estimates and the “foundation” created by Bill C-4.

Neither Bill C-4 nor its predecessor, Bill C-46, mentions “Sustainable Development Technology Fund.” Indeed, in speaking on second reading of Bill C-4, the hon. Minister of National Resources and Minister responsible for the Canada Wheat Board stated, and I quote the Debates of February 19th 2001, page 852, said:

In Budget 2000, we first announced the government's intention to establish a foundation with initial funding of $100 million to stimulate the development and demonstration of new environmental technologies, in particular climate change and clean air technologies. Bill C-4 delivers on that commitment from Budget 2000. It creates the organizational structure, the legal status and the modus operandi of the foundation.

On the basis of the minister's statement, I am led to conclude that what is being sought in the Supplementary Estimates (A) is funding for the Canada Sustainable Development Technology Foundation, established pursuant to Bill C-4. From a procedural point of view, such a request poses no difficulty.

However, the Supplementary Estimates do not identify the foundation as the recipient. Instead, the estimates refer only to a Sustainable Development Technology Fund.

The second question is the crux of the matter: what is the link, if any, between the $100 million requested in supplementary estimates (A) for the foundation/fund and the $50 million already paid to the not for profit corporation in April of this year?

As I have already mentioned in the chronology, notes in the supplementary estimates list the sustainable development technology fund as the recipient of a total of $50 million in interim funding through the treasury board contingencies vote. However, these funds were paid to the pre-existing not-for-profit corporation, established under an altogether different legal authority, namely, the Canada Corporations Act, and not under Bill C-4 creating the foundation.

The Chair cannot see that the request for $100 million funding relates in any way to the original grants made to the corporation using the legal authority of the Energy Efficiency Act and the Department of the Environment Act. Simply put, the $100 million now being sought cannot be used both to fund the foundation and to refund the treasury board contingencies vote for $50 million paid out earlier to the corporation.

Bourinot 4th edition at page 416 has this to say on the subject of supplementary estimates: “All these estimates are divided into votes or resolutions, which appropriate specified sums for services specially defined. They are arranged under separate heads of expenditure, so as to give the full information upon all matters contained therein”.

The lack of clarity and transparency in this case must be of considerable concern to the Chair. Requests for funds in the estimates are tied to particular programs, previously approved by parliament. I have noted, of course, the auditor general's comment that she is satisfied that legal authority existed for these grants under the Energy Efficiency Act and the Department of the Environment Act. However, the concomitant authority under the supply process to make these payments has never been sought from parliament. That is the crux of the procedural difficulty raised by the hon. member for St. Albert and I must conclude that he is correct in his assessment of the situation, if not perhaps in the remedy he suggests.

In summary, then, the Chair has concluded that no authority has ever been sought from parliament for grants totalling $50 million made to the corporation in April of this year and does not consider that the notes in the supplementary estimates (A) concerning the disbursement of these earlier monies are sufficient to be considered as a request for approval of those grants. In other words, the approval that is being sought in supplementary estimates (A) cannot be deemed to include tacit approval for the earlier $50 million grant.

However, as there remains ample time for the government to take corrective action by making the appropriate request of parliament through the supplementary estimates process, the Chair need not comment further at this time. The supplementary estimates (A) for 2001-2002 can therefore proceed.

I wish to thank the hon. member for St. Albert for having drawn this matter to the attention of the House. I commend him for his vigilance in matters of supply. I especially appreciate his having raised it early enough to allow the Chair to examine closely a very complex issue and I hope my ruling has not confused hon. members.

[The Speaker]

I am ready to deal with the point of order raised this morning by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough concerning Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts), passed by this House on November 2, and specifically concerning the message received from the Senate yesterday, November 21.

The message received yesterday from the Senate reads:

ORDERED: That, notwithstanding Rule 63(1), the proceedings on Bill C-33, an Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which took place on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, be declared null and void; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons informing that House of this decision and that the Senate attends any message that the House of Commons may have regarding this matter.

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter for it gives the Chair an opportunity to correct certain misinformation about this case.

The hon. member is correct when he says that deficiencies were identified in the parchments and reprints of the bill sent to the other place.

These errors were first identified by House of Commons officials, who immediately informed their counterparts in the other place of their findings. It is important to note that these errors were strictly administrative in nature and occurred after third reading was given to Bill C-33 in the House, so that at no time were the actual records of the House compromised.

It in no way affects any proceedings that took place on the bill in this Chamber or in committee and I can assure all hon. members that there is no defect in the records of the House regarding Bill C-33. These remain in the words of the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough “pristine, concise and accurate”.

The documents relating to Bill C-33 sent to the Senate were not accurate and the fact that they were not is the most unfortunate result of compounded human errors. When my officials discovered these regrettable errors, no substantive proceedings on the bill had yet occurred in the other place. On being briefed on the matter, I directed the clerk to communicate with his counterpart in the other place. I asked the Clerk of the House to take the necessary action to rectify the error and to ensure that the other House would have a correct and complete copy of Bill C-33. That was done yesterday. Such communication is part of the usual administrative procedures of parliament and in no way constitutes a message to the other place which requires an explicit decision of the House.

I understand that Bill C-33 has, earlier this afternoon, received first reading in the other place.

I once again thank the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for his assiduous concern about the accuracy of House records. I trust this will allay his anxieties in this regard. I therefore consider this matter closed.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that ruling and direction. I certainly commend you and your staff for the usual competence and wizardry in the procedure of this place.

I wish to continue with this issue regarding the availability of the transcripts of the justice committee. As of just moments ago, when checking the record which the hon. government House leader referred to as available on the Internet and available at blues, it shows quite clearly in a print off that there are no transcripts available as of November 1. That is three weeks and that is very important evidence.

The point is not that it is available to me as a member of the justice committee. It is that it is not available to other members who are not members of the committee who may wish to file amendments.

As well, it is now 3.30 p.m. and we still do not have a copy of Bill C-36 as amended. This is something of great concern, I would suggest, to all members who wish to ensure that Bill C-36 is properly dealt with and properly amended before it passes into law.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has made statements about the transcripts of earlier meetings of the justice committee. I am sorry, I cannot comment on that. I have no additional information. We will certainly look into the matter.

With respect to the reprinted copy of the bill, it appears that the 4 o'clock deadline is not going to work. It will be probably tomorrow before the copy is ready but we are continuing to work on it. Given the large number of amendments obviously that is a matter of some difficulty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with what the House leader--

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

You were not accurate in your response.

Privilege

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to Bill C-42, a bill that was tabled earlier today and debated during question period.

Like Bill C-36, Bill C-42 was drafted to address the security issues facing Canadians as a result of the attack on the United States on September 11. Once again the security of the very bills designed to protect the security of Canadians has been breached. The government indicated that the bill was not ready to be tabled in the House yesterday, yet its contents were leaked to the media.

There was an article in the Globe and Mail by Steven Chase and Campbell Clark which reports “the legislation will include stopgap immigration enforcement measures similar to ones contained in immigration Bill C-11, that will not be in effect until late spring 2002, government sources said”. The article goes on with details of the bill, quoting government sources.

This is also within the context of the fact that yesterday in question period we asked substantive questions of the government about the contents of the security bill. The government said it could not answer the questions and that it was going to be tabled tomorrow. At the same time that it was not answering our questions, it was answering questions from the Globe and Mail on the phone to meet its four o'clock deadline.

As with the cases of Bill C-15 and Bill C-36, the media received an extensive briefing before members were and before the bill was tabled. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and her department were held in contempt of the House for leaking the contents of Bill C-15. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is presently looking into the leak of Bill C-36. The deputy clerk of the privy council appeared before the committee this morning and reported on his investigation into the Bill C-36 case.

In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-15 you stated:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence.

Not the Globe and Mail , the House.

The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent role which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to the media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

In this case it is clear that information concerning legislation...was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House.

I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

This matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee concluded:

The committee believes that the protocol of the Department of Justice whereby no briefings or briefing material should be provided with respect to a bill on notice until its introduction in the House of Commons should be adopted as a standard policy by all government departments. We believe that such a policy is respectful of the House of Commons and its members. It recognizes the legislative role of parliament, and is consistent with parliamentary privilege and the conventions of parliament.

The committee noted that the adoption of such a policy should not be viewed as preventing the provisions of courtesy copies of government bills on a confidential basis to opposition critics shortly before their introduction. The committee went on to state:

This incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the Committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of the House of Commons and its members. Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of parliament's constitutional role in legislating. The rights of the House and its Members in this role are central to our constitutional and democratic government.

Finally, the committee heeded this warning:

Failure to adopt appropriate measures could lead to a reoccurrence of this problem, in which case the House would have to consider using its power in a more severe way.... The acceptance of an apology will not necessarily be considered a sufficient response.

Despite this warning, the government proceeded to leak the contents of Bill C-36 and yesterday it leaked the contents of Bill C-42.

On the privy council website it describes ministerial responsibility as:

Ministerial responsibility is a fundamental principle of the constitution.... This responsibility is honed by the ever present possibility that in particular circumstances ministers may be embarrassed, suffer loss of prestige weakening themselves and the government, jeopardize their standing with their colleagues and hence their political future, or even be forced to submit to public enquiry possibly resulting in censure and loss of office as a result of the way in which their power has been used.

We have already embarrassed the government with the Bill C-36 and Bill C-15 cases.

We have had a public inquiry through the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We have had a minister censured and charged with contempt. The only thing left to do is to call for the minister's resignation.

It is time for action, not more studies and not more warnings. The minister should take responsibility for this action. Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to that effect.

[The Speaker]

I would like to ask one point of clarification before I hear from the government House leader.

Could the hon. member indicate, is it the Globe and Mail story on which he is relying in support of this or is there some other evidence that he wishes to bring to the House?

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are in fact two stories. There is one story on the front page of the Globe and Mail above the fold written by Campbell Clark and Steven Chase and another article in the National Post written by Ian Jack, both of which quote government sources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe this time the hon. member does not have the story correct at all for a number of reasons which I intend to explain to the Chair and all members.

First, the member is conveniently mixing up the issue of Bill C-15 which was not the issue of a leak at all, as he knows. The issue involving Bill C-15 had to do with an administrative procedure used by officials for briefing the media. It was a form of briefing offered to the media ahead of MPs which was obviously wrong. It was corrected.

I issued instructions which are now in the public domain. As a matter of fact, this morning a briefing was offered to MPs and no briefing to the media. In any case, had one been offered to the media, it would have been no sooner than the one offered to members and only if they were locked up. I will get into the content of what was in the Globe and Mail in a minute.

That is the mistake, I will be generous, that the member makes when he compares this to Bill C-15.

I want to get into what the member alleges are leaks. There are a number of newspaper articles. I will quote a few of them. Part of the article says:

Today's new bill had been expected earlier but was delayed until today because it needed more work, Liberal House Leader Don Boudria told reporters.

Some secret that was that I revealed to the reporters so far. The reporter speculated that cabinet is debating whether to transfer the responsibility for airport security screening to a non-profit corporation or to local airport authorities. I will not say whether cabinet is or is not debating that, but regardless whether it is debating it or not, it is not in the bill.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That is not the Globe and Mail story.

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

That is the Globe and Mail story entitled, “Ottawa takes aim at bioterror; Second terrorism bill toughens penalties and loosens air passenger privacy rules”, by Steven Chase and Campbell Clark with reports from Brian Laghi, Daniel Leblanc and Shawn McCarthy.

This is exactly the story to which I am referring. It goes on with a number of such speculated things, a couple of them which happen to be correct, I will admit that, particularly the one that says the bill deals with bioterrorism. That is the title of the bill. It would not be surprising that the bill dealt with that which was in the title. In terms of what would such bioterrorism measures include, Canada has signed a convention. It is all in a public convention and it is in the title of the bill.

The reporters are very smart but the one who concluded that what is in the title of the bill and what is in the international convention we signed, and he speculated that was in the bill, frankly that does not require rocket science. Most people could have speculated on that particular one.

Let us listen to some more. This time it is the National Post story:

Sources said the government is considering creating a new agency of government responsible for transport security, reporting to Transport Canada.

That is not in the bill at all. Let me read further. The Ottawa Citizen has a story by Rick Mofina. This is a real good one. It says:

On Monday, Parliament gave notice of a new bill entitled--

Mr. Speaker, you being the expert on parliamentary procedure that you are, how does parliament give notice of a bill? This mechanism does not exist. I as leader of the government in the House give notice of all government bills pursuant to authority given to me by cabinet. Parliament does not give notice of a bill. The article goes on to say:

Meanwhile, the global pact on germ warfare is under review at an ongoing conference concerning the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, ratified by 144 countries, including Canada.

All of this was obvious to anyone who read the title of the bill that was presented in the House today, just in case somebody says, “Oh yes, but the bill was presented today, we did not know the title”. I would bet that is what the hon. member who is heckling was going to say.

That was put on the notice paper, at the back of the order paper under the Roman numerals on the first page, two days ago. That is where that piece of brilliant information comes from.

I do not know where the evidence is of a leak this time. First, there has been an unfair comparison made with Bill C-15. Second, a whole pile of what I saw was factually inaccurate. Third, the little bit of it that was, was very easy to speculate on, such as reading the title of the bill which again is not rocket science.

[The Speaker]

The Chair will certainly take the matter under advisement.

I want to thank the hon. member for Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam and the government House leader for their interventions in this matter. I will review the statements hon. members have made. I will review the newspaper articles in question and get back to the House in due course.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A little while ago, I attempted to rise to offer a relieving measure to the House in relation to Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. I realize that some of us have worked very hard and are tired. I intend to try again with this measure to see whether it will be helpful to the House.

I am told from informal conversations with the table officers that if the House were to unanimously agree to extend the time, provided it is reasonable and table officers and Mr. Speaker can carefully review report stage amendments, that we could alter the time of 2 p.m. tomorrow in order to assist hon. members. I have had no opportunity to consult other parties, but in order to be helpful to the House, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion. I move:

That the normal hour for filing report stage amendments be extended from 2 p.m. November 23 to 2 p.m. November 24.

This will give members more time, until Saturday, and hopefully this will accommodate them. I know everyone has worked hard and hopefully this will be--

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

We will say yes. We will show our goodwill but we are not going to give a big kiss. No one has to kiss us to say yes.