Debates of March 22nd, 2001

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I could quote the entire statement of the secretary of state today, but I will briefly highlight the portion which refers to the point just raised which says:

Yesterday I mistakenly linked the city of Prince George with a specific hate activity. I regret that and I apologize to the people of Prince George.

I am very proud of what communities have accomplished in this country to counter racism and hate and to promote cultural diversity, especially the city of Prince George's city council task force on hate activities.

The statement was withdrawn. Therefore, if it was withdrawn and the letter attached to something that was withdrawn is equally withdrawn.

Second, it was said that the minister had two hours to think it through. I would think most members in the House know that the hon. minister yesterday, immediately after question period, was participating in a number of activities with dozens of Canadians wishing like her to fight racism in Canada. To suggest that she had “two hours” to do nothing and so on is inaccurate.

Third, it was said that the member had a long time to apologize. No, that is not stated correctly. The minister has apologized some time ago would be the more appropriate reference. In fact it was two hours and fifteen minutes.

Fourth, it was said in the House that the minister was not sincere when she apologized. That is impugning motives to someone else.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

You bet it is.

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

An hon. member has just now said “you bet it is”, confirming the fact that was exactly the intent of what was said.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Do you want me to say it on the record?

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

Mr. Speaker, we now have a second member just corroborating that accusation and therefore refusing to accept the apology of an hon. minister.

Fifth, it has been said in words to the effect that the community in question, and I disagree with that, was “a haven for cross burners”.

This statement was never made by the minister. In fact she withdrew what she said. Regardless, the particular statement was never made. How could one allege that someone made a statement when the statement was not that and was withdrawn anyway? If it was withdrawn, it was assumed under the rules of the House not to have been made.

I did not invent those rules. They were around here long before I came along, and possibly will be around far longer than I will be here. Be that as it may, other members and I will accept when a member apologizes to the House because that is the appropriate thing to do.

[An hon. member]

She is a minister.

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

A member across just said “She is a minister”. In other words, we should believe some members and disbelieve others because they are public officeholders.

I refute that. All hon. members are accountable to the House. We all are. I am a senior cabinet minister and I am accountable. I am here now. My colleague, the secretary of state, was in the House and apologized very clearly to the people of Prince George, British Columbia. That was clearly done.

All of us know that was done. Let this be clear, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism was serious about her apology. I believe that we on this side of the House have taken her apology as being very serious. I would recommend to you, Mr. Speaker, that you accept that apology with the seriousness and the sincerity in which it was intended. This issue should be closed as a result of this clear and unequivocal apology made earlier this day, over two hours ago in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I wonder whether or not I could help shed some light on this darkening situation by suggesting that there may be some middle ground here between what I would say was a hyperbole and an evasion: hyperbole, justified in many respects by the justified indignation of the people of Prince George and their representatives about what was said yesterday, and evasion on the part of the government in the sense that what is at issue here is not whether the minister apologized for the statement about there being cross burnings in Prince George but whether or not she was withdrawing her claims about the letter and the communication from the mayor, et cetera.

She has not indicated anything in that respect. I was here when she made her statement earlier. Unfortunately she chose to rush out of the Chamber immediately after she made her point of order. There were people that wanted to question her on her statement about having received a communication from the mayor. If she made some reference to a letter in a scrum, that is a further reference to a communication from the mayor of Prince George.

People wanted to know if she is now saying that she received no communication, either a letter or any other kind, from the mayor of Prince George. That would go a long way to correcting what members of the Alliance are claiming is untrue. I take them at their word. They know more about Prince George and the situation there than I do.

The point of the matter is that it is incumbent upon the minister, or perhaps on you, Mr. Speaker, to advise the House as to how we can create a situation where the minister can come in and account, not just for what she said about burning crosses in Prince George but for what she said about how she came to believe that there were burning crosses in Prince George. She led the House to believe this was a communication she received from the mayor of Prince George.

Members want to know whether or not the apology includes a withdrawal of that claim and an apology for making that claim, particularly if it is not true and if the mayor of Prince George is denying it.

All would be settled if the minister would be prepared to come in here and defend herself. Instead of having the Prime Minister and the government House leader defend her, she could walk in here and give an account of what she said, what she still stands by, and what she now withdraws and further apologizes for.

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

Mr. Speaker, much of what has been said clearly indicates that there are now more facts to be examined because of what has taken place here.

The government House leader has characterized the apology that was given as clear and unequivocal. I was in the House and I would characterize it quite differently. I would characterize it as quite qualified and carefully crafted.

Subsequent to that the minister then literally sprinted out of the House while there was an attempt made by the opposition House leader to have her table documents to which she had referred. The minister herself has opened a whole new facet of the particular issue.

I took her qualified apology to in fact bring in new evidence that suggested she was relying on a letter that came from the mayor of Prince George. That now appears to be totally and utterly false. She did not address that issue in her apology.

I suggest there is a need in an unemotional and straightforward way to examine all of the facts that have transpired. It is very simple and easy to do that. We can check Hansard to see what was said.

The minister should in fairness be given an opportunity to speak to the issue and have an opportunity perhaps to set the record straight again, if necessary. There are a number of very specious, false and very damaging statements when it comes to the people of Prince George that are now out there for them to try to contend with. The minister herself has to be part of this equation.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take the matter seriously, review the record and give the minister an opportunity to reply.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has heard enough on this point. We have heard from each party that has offered to participate in the discussion.

[An hon. member]

Not the member for Prince George—Peace River.

[The Speaker]

I am very well aware that the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River wants to rise, but there has to be a limit on how long we discuss these matters.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, he is the representative of that riding.

[The Speaker]

I am well aware that he is the representative of that riding. Maybe he should have led off but he did not.

[An hon. member]

There are two members of parliament.

[The Speaker]

I am well aware of that, and one of them did not lead off. The fact is we have had an incident that has caused severe distress to the members of parliament from Prince George. I am as well aware of that as I think all hon. members. I know that others have been offended by these remarks as well. The fact is that sometimes members say things in the House that are incorrect or wrong. Subsequently, when this is drawn to their attention, they make some kind of apology or statement.

In this case that is what has happened. I have in my hand a copy of the minister's remarks, which I was in the House for earlier today, in which as she said:

yesterday I mistakenly linked the city of Prince George with a specific hate activity.

Apparently she went on to say that she regretted that and she apologized to the people of that community. Many hon. members, for whatever reason, may feel that this apology was insufficient, given the seriousness of the statements that were made, but the fact is that there was an apology.

For the Chair to continue the matter by some means, and I am not sure what, perhaps by finding a breach of privilege, I would have to have heard something that convinces me that the privileges of the House of Commons have been breached by a minister or any member making a statement that is incorrect and then making some kind of apology. I do not believe the privileges of the House have been breached by this. Accordingly I do not see a place where the Chair can intervene further.

Hon. members have made their point forcefully that the minister's retraction, apology or whatever it is called, was insufficient for their purposes. I am sure that the matter will come up again in committee when the minister is making an appearance on estimates or something of that kind. I am sure questions will be asked.

I do not think it is for the Chair at this point to rule that there has been any breach of the privileges of the House that would justify me in referring the matter further.

I know it is perhaps an unsatisfactory resolution of the issue at this time for some hon. members. I also know that, as we saw today in question period, questions may get asked. There will be opportunities, as I say, when the minister will be asked and she may choose to answer further questions or make a further statement, but that is not for the Chair to compel or demand at this point.

Hon. members have made their points and I am very respectful of the fact that many hon. members have been deeply offended by the remarks that were made. However, I think in the circumstances the minister has made an apology. The House has to accept the apology such as it is, although there may be disagreement about it. I think we need to move on to the other items of business before us this afternoon, with great respect to all hon. members.

I mean no disrespect to the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River or his colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley in not hearing them. I feel that we have heard from each party. It is a matter that continual discussion of is not going to assist us because I do not believe there is a question of privilege in this discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to questions on the order paper. It is a new approach to the same old problem of the government not responding within the allotted time period.

[The Speaker]

I heard the hon. member on this point yesterday on a point of order during the time questions were called. I believe he raised the matter again this morning when questions were called. I cannot see how there is a question of privilege arising out of this matter.

He has tabled his questions and he has answers as to why they are late one way or another from the parliamentary secretary. I will hear him for one minute, but he has to convince me very quickly that this is a question of privilege because I do not see it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will convince you if I am given a minute. I will go back to 1992 and quote from Hansard on the very same issue regarding breaches of privilege with regard to questions on the order paper. This is effectively shutting down a member of parliament.

On March 10, 1992, the then member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who by the way is now the government House leader in charge of this file, rose on this very issue. The Speaker at the time heard the member out, which I am hoping you will do. The member at the time quoted from pages 70 and 71 of Erskine May's 20th edition which I will do regarding privilege. It is defined as:

The privileges of Parliament are rights which are “absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers”. They are enjoyed by individual Members—

He went on to point out that Standing Order 39(4) of the House says that members can place up to four questions on the order paper at one time. Quoting from Hansard , March 10, 1992, the member said:

The point I want to make to you is that the government is systematically not answering questions that I place on the Order Paper. By not answering the questions that are there, I am unable to ask new questions.

That restricts the role of members of parliament to ask legitimate questions of the government. He continued:

In other words, once the Order Paper is plugged up with four questions, new questions cannot be asked.

He went on in detail—

[The Speaker]

I am quite familiar with the argument the hon. member is making. I recall making a similar one myself at one time or another. I am very sympathetic to the plight he describes, but might I suggest that he go to the procedure and House affairs committee at the earliest opportunity, or the new committee that has been struck to deal with changing the rules of the House, and seek changes to allow him to put even more questions on the order paper or seek changes that might have some penalty for non-answer to the questions.

It is not for the Chair on questions of privilege to deal with the fact that answers are not being given. What power does the Chair have to enforce this rule now? None.

We can say that these questions should be answered. I can stand here and say it until I am blue in the face, but if they are not answered, they are not answered. I know the problem. It is an old problem.

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

That is why we are here, to be heard.

[The Speaker]

That is why I am suggesting the hon. member go to the committee and raise it there because the committee is charged with this responsibility.

I am not in a position to do something to solve the problem. The parliamentary secretary may be able to help by giving further solace to the hon. member in respect of the answers, and perhaps that is what he will do now.

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

Mr. Speaker, none of us here have any doubt that the member's questions are important and that they raise important issues. I indicated to him last week and in fact shared a draft answer to one of the questions. I indicated it was my intention and the government's intention to improve on the answer in the draft. He seemed to have acquiesced.

I point out procedurally, and for the benefit of the hon. member if he is interested, that in the event a question of that nature is not answered within 45 days he is at liberty, and this is what procedure requires, to ask that it be transferred for debate. If he wishes to have it transferred for debate, that is his remedy and members of the House will acquiesce in that.

However he does not appear to want to transfer the question for debate. He appears to want an answer. I have indicated to the House that I am working with the hon. member to get an answer, and he has acknowledged that. It does not seem to be that pressing that we should have to take up more House time trying to convince the hon. member that his answers will be good answers on these important issues and that they will be forthcoming shortly.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you check the record, I was quoted the same time in 1992 as the current government House leader. The point I made then, which I will make here very briefly because I know you are anxious for this to be over, was that the four question rule of only being able to put only four questions on the order paper, the limit of four questions, was new when instituted in the 1980s. It was supposed to benefit the government so that it would not have a whole bunch of questions.

In return for only having four questions, the government would answer the questions within 45 days. Now what we have is that if the government does not answer the questions, we cannot put down any more questions. The government is frustrating the will of that reform.

Does the government want to go back to the days when there were 100 questions on the order paper? Is that what it wants? The reform was brought in to meet the needs of the government that was complaining it had far too many questions on the order paper. It asked to limit them to four and it would answer within 45 days. Now what does it have? It has the best of all possible worlds. It does not answer the questions and members can only ask four. It is ridiculous.

[The Speaker]

I sympathize with the hon. member. I remember making the same arguments. However, the rules are the rules and the Speaker, as a servant of the House, must enforce those rules.