Debates of March 21st, 2001

Points Of Order

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

Privilege

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is in regard to another case where the media was given preferential treatment of information intended for parliamentarians.

I would also argue that the timing of the release of the information resulted in impeding the work of members of parliament.

My question of privilege charges the ethics counsellor with contempt of parliament for releasing information in a way that impeded members of the industry committee and of the House. The Minister of Industry tabled the same information in the House after the media had an opportunity to examine it. This contempt occurred yesterday.

While I recognize that the Speaker is reluctant to intervene in a committee matter, the circumstances in this case are extraordinary and have a direct link to the proceedings of the House.

Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , on page 70, defines a proceeding in parliament:

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 seventeenth century and today are all events which are part of “proceedings in Parliament”.

Mr. Maingot went on to say:

Privilege of Parliament is founded on necessity, and is those rights that are “absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.” Necessity then should be a basis for any claim that an event was part of a “proceeding in Parliament,” i.e., what is claimed to be part of a “proceeding in Parliament” and thus protected should be necessarily incidental to a “proceeding in Parliament.”

On page 72 of a 1939 report from the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act, it states:

—a proceeding in Parliament covers both the asking of a question and the giving written notice of such a question.

The House has been seeking for two years, through the daily question period, evidence regarding the Prime Minister's stake in 161341 Canada Inc. The Minister of Industry promised members of the House that the information was coming. The appearance of the ethics counsellor at the Standing Committee on Industry yesterday was used as a follow up to the questions in the House and to the promise given by the industry minister.

The Leader of the Opposition asked the ethics counsellor:

Will the Corporations Directorate be communicating to the minister, and to you, the name of any fourth shareholder, whether it's Jonas Prince, whether it's the Prime Minister himself, whether it's some other person? Will they actually be communicating that to you so that the House can determine if the Prime Minister had a conflict of interest or not?

To which the ethics counsellor replied:

I expect that the Corporations Directorate will be responding to my letter. I'm not sure exactly when that will take place. But what my intention is, as I indicated to you in my interim reply, once I have that in hand, I will be responding directly to you and I am quite confident that will remove any lingering uncertainties.

Mr. Speaker, in the dying minutes of that committee meeting, after the ethics counsellor was finished as a witness—and you will find this in the last line of the minutes of the committee meeting—he tabled with the chairman the letter he claimed he would give to the Leader of the Opposition directly when he had it in hand. The ethics counsellor then marched over to the media, released the letter to the media and conducted interviews regarding the same letter.

That information should have been tabled as soon as he had it and it should have been part of the proceedings of that meeting. He had promised the Leader of the Opposition earlier that the moment he had it he would give it to the Leader of the Opposition but he withheld that information. It was contemptuous when he had that, not to have delivered what was asked of him. It was useless for the committee to release it at the very end when the questioning was over. It was as if he attempted to meet the criteria on some purely technical basis on the notion that the letter should have been tabled with members before the media.

However I would argue that what the ethics counsellor did was essentially give the media the first opportunity to scrutinize the letter and to do an interview with him. This was an indirect act that impeded the committee. The entire time the questioning was going on he withheld that critical information about what was in the letter which dealt with the question that the Leader of the Opposition had put to him.

Erskine May describes contempt as:

—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 may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

When the Minister of Industry tabled the letter in the House later, he too was guilty of contempt when he promised he would deliver it the moment he had it.

On March 20, the Speaker ruled that:

With respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House takes precedence.... To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone...I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

I would argue that an act that has the same results as what you pointed out in your ruling is also contempt. This is what the authorities on parliamentary procedure would have us believe.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you examine the committee minutes. The committee was divided into two parts: a question and comment period about the ethics counsellor and his role as the ethics counsellor, and a meeting concerning the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Mr. Speaker, as you go through those minutes you will find there is nothing about the letter that he tabled at the end of the meeting. There are no comments and no questions because we did not know the letter existed, even though he obviously had it in the pocket of his jacket.

Mr. Speaker, if you read the papers this morning you will see much discussion on the details of that letter but once again the media came before parliamentarians.

The House did not see the letter until much later that same day. The ethics counsellor may not report to directly to parliament but he has now put himself in a situation where parliament must deal with him directly.

The ethics counsellor must be held accountable for his actions. He knew full well that he had the letter in his pocket. He denied that information to the Leader of the Opposition when he was asked directly when that information would be available. He denied he had it. He said he would make it available as soon as it was in his possession. It was in the pocket of his jacket the entire time. He denied information to members of parliament that was germane to the subject matter and critical for us to do our job. He is in contempt of parliament.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find a prima facie case against him and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Standing Committee on Industry I wish to clarify exactly what took place at committee yesterday afternoon.

The meeting continued on after the first round of questions. During the second round there were questions about the Lobbyist Registration Act. During that time period, at approximately 5.12 p.m., Mr. Wilson notified me that he had just received a letter in both English and French. I thought, mistakenly, and the blues will show, that it was from Industry Canada. I suggested that Mr. Wilson should speak to it in between the questioning of witnesses by the member for Burlington and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

During that time period Mr. Wilson explained that he did not want to be excessively dramatic. He had just been given clearance to give the committee a letter. It was an original in French, with translations from Pierre Paquette, the lawyer that represents the golf club, who has written to Industry Canada. He apologized that it was not available earlier but there it was. He hoped that the representatives would get it to their party leaders.

The committee then continued for approximately 15 minutes during which time no one raised the question of the letter. If we go back, the earlier comment was with regard to the corporations directorate. This is a different letter from the lawyer for the corporation.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not at the committee meeting. I am not sure whether the official opposition House leader was either, but I just wanted to say on the matter that it does seem to me a bit odd that this letter should have been released at the time that it was to the committee.

I have heard conflicting reports as to whether or not the ethics counsellor may or may not have had the letter on his person all the time that he was there, or whether he received it some time later in the meeting, as the chairman of the committee contends and as I heard from someone else.

It does not really matter whether or not he actually had it on him when he was answering the Leader of the Opposition or whether he received it later, although if he had it on him it sort of compounds the problem.

Given the preoccupation of the House with this issue, and it is not always a preoccupation that those of us in my party have been able to share because we have decided to devote our few questions to other issues, I have listened carefully to what has gone on between various opposition members and the government on this.

I have to say that this is the first time, given the behaviour of the ethics counsellor yesterday in the committee with respect to the release of the letter, I have had an inkling or a feeling that perhaps the ethics counsellor was more than just a guy caught in a very difficult situation, trapped by the limits of his mandate, by the limits of whom he appoints, whom he reports to, who appointed him, and by the limits of the current conflict of interest guidelines the Prime Minister and others operate within.

Until yesterday it never occurred to me that the ethics counsellor might actually be acting in a way that was favourable to one side or the other of the argument. However, I have to say I think the ethics counsellor owes the House an explanation at this point. I am still not prepared to say that he was taking sides, but it sure looks like it when he released that letter at the point in time in the life of that committee meeting when he did.

I would think that an explanation should be forthcoming from the ethics counsellor and, if there is not an appropriate explanation, it may well be that he was acting in contempt of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the point that has been raised by the hon. House leader for the official opposition. I have also listened to the input of other members.

I was present at the committee. As the chair of the committee has indicated, it was just before I was to commence my line of questioning that I noticed Mr. Wilson conferring with someone I presumed to be a staff person, and then pre-empting the committee by the statement. I can verify that it was along the lines, as the chair of the committee said, that he did not mean to be dramatic or overly dramatic, and then he proceeded to divulge the contents or the gist of the letter.

It is important to note that as indicated previously there were two distinct points in time in which members of the committee were permitted to ask questions on a certain subject matter, namely the Grand-Mère file. That was limited by the chair of the committee and it was directly related to the Shawinigan-Grand-Mère file to which this letter pertained.

Most of the main questioners on the particular subject matter had left by the time the letter was divulged. If they were present or if members of the committee generally wanted to question the witness at that time about the letter, I strongly suggest that we would not have been permitted to in any event, given the parameters that were placed on the committee by the chair. The timing is highly suspect.

[The Speaker]

I have heard a fair bit on this point. What is apparent at this point, from everything that I have heard, is that this is a matter relating to the proceedings in this committee.

There is no question that there were proceedings ongoing in this committee. No one has denied that the committee meeting was taking place. It now appears that everyone says the letter was produced during that meeting. Whether or not it was discussed, whether it was made public, whether it was tabled, or whether there was some allegation of wrongdoing, is a matter surely for the industry committee to decide.

I must say that at the conclusion of the remarks of the hon. House leader for the official opposition I thought it was an excellent presentation to make before the committee chair. The matter has to be dealt with, with great respect to hon. members, in the committee and not here in the House.

I have not heard a thing that suggests there has been a breach of the privileges of the House itself. There may have been something go wrong in the committee, but until the committee reports to the House and has dealt with the issue, and it has not met since, as I understand it, we are at a bit of an impasse here.

Could I suggest we leave the issue at this point and have the industry committee deal with it, because that is where the matter ought to be raised, at least in a preliminary way. It appears to me that it has not been raised there.

Until there has been some decision by the committee, and it may wish to hear more testimony on the issue, it is premature for me to interfere in any way. Indeed, as hon. members know, it is very unusual for the Chair to involve itself in committee proceedings anyway. I believe that this is a matter that should be dealt with there and I respectfully request hon. members to raise the issue in the industry committee at this point.

Government Response To Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-22, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another act related to the Excise Tax Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Indian Act

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-307, an act to amend the Indian Act (election of chiefs and councils).

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed delighted to introduce this bill which would ensure that Elections Canada monitors elections of chiefs and councils on reserves right across the country. Many people who live on reserves have expressed to me a concern about the elections of chiefs and councils on their reserves. All the bill would do is ensure that elections would be fair and votes would be respected, and it would do so in a logical way by having Elections Canada monitor the elections.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege to present to the House a petition with some 30 signatures from concerned citizens. The petition is to draw to the attention of parliament the fact that rural route mail couriers have not been allowed to bargain collectively to improve their wages and working conditions.

Since workers who deliver mail in cities have collective bargaining rights, the petitioners request that parliament repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit rural mail couriers to bargain collectively, like urban mail workers.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have in hand a petition with several hundred names of individuals from across Saskatchewan.

Farmers across the province of Saskatchewan want the federal government to give them the necessary tools to fight a severe infestation of gophers. The petition is calling on the federal government to amend regulations to permit the sale of concentrated liquid strychnine to registered farmers until an effective alternative can be found.

Gophers are destroying hundreds of acres of pasture and grain land every year and, to a great extent, farmers are powerless to stop them. Crop and hay land damage caused by this infestation of gophers is very costly to the farmer in lost productivity, equipment repairs and injury to livestock.

It is the hope of these petitioners that the petition will convince the federal government to relax the restrictions on strychnine poison so that farmers can get the gopher problem under control.

We appreciate the opportunity to bring this grave and serious problem to the attention of the House.

Starred Questions

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parlementary Secretary to Leaderr of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 9. I ask that the question and answer be printed in Hansard as if read.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed that the question and answer be printed as read?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed. .[Text]

*Question No. 9—

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Regarding Fort Townshend in St. John's, Newfoundland: ( a ) has the Government of Canada made any representations to the government of Newfoundland regarding the preservation of the archeological integrity of Fort Townshend; and ( b ) does the Government of Canada support the destruction of the Fort Townshend ruins?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

(a) Parks Canada officials have visited the Fort Townshend site and met with provincial officials. The government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been encouraged to consider the importance of the archaeological remains at Fort shend National Historic Site of Canada in the planning and construction of the new cultural and heritage facility. These actions by the federal government are consistent with the Parks Canada guiding principles and operational policies in its application to national historic sites not administered by Parks Canada.

(b) Parks Canada encourages and supports the protection and presentation of all national historic sites, including those not administered by the agency. This position was affirmed in the national historic sites of Canada system plan announced in the fall of 2000.

Mr. Speaker, I also ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I presume the parliamentary secretary's response is in relation to the questions I had put on the order paper last June.

Is it not? That is helpful.

I would like to point out to the House that the parliamentary secretary has been very helpful to me on a personal basis in regard to responding to a question put on the order paper last June, and subsequently put on the order paper when parliament was recalled, regarding the sale of 40 Huey helicopters. This is very important to the House, because the issue of those helicopters falling into the wrong hands in terms of Colombian terrorists and so on has been raised in the House on a number of occasions. We want those questions answered.

Further, last week I was attempting to get answers to these questions which have been on the order paper too long in my opinion and I think in the opinion of most members of the House. Also at that time I put on the order paper questions relating to the sale of 10 Challenger aircraft owned by the Government of Canada. These were brokered through an aviation firm called Lancaster Aviation—

[The Speaker]

Perhaps the hon. member could come to his point. I do not think we need to hear all the details of the questions.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, with due respect, if I do not provide details we will never know, because for some reason the government simply does not want to answer.

In addition to the question on the 40 Huey helicopters, I also had questions on the order paper going back to last June and subsequently re-entered when the new parliament resumed, on the sale of 10 Challenger aircraft by the Government of Canada through the same brokerage firm, Lancaster Aviation.

When will we get answers to that set of questions in addition to the Huey helicopters question? They are important issues. I think the Canadian people have a right to know.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be technical, I suppose, the government will treat the two questions the hon. member has on the order paper as new questions beginning in this parliament.

I have reviewed a draft answer to one question with the hon. member. I can say that I felt the question deserved a more full response than was originally drafted. I have asked that the government do so. The member is aware of that.

The second question is in process. I am sure an answer will be forthcoming very shortly.

[The Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?