House of Commons Hansard #43 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.

Topics

Automobile IndustryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

Firearms RegistryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, last week the government was forced to withdraw its backdoor request for an additional $72 million for the farcical firearms fiasco. There was evidence of enormous cost overruns, blatant mismanagement and no connection to public safety. Against that, the justice minister has stubbornly refused to cancel this ridiculous registry.

Examples of the government downloading the costs and cuts, and leaving the program administration to the provinces include: legal aid, youth justice, health care, and infrastructure.

Will the minister guarantee Canadians he will not surreptitiously sneak more taxpayers' money into the gun registry or leave the provinces holding the empty bag?

Firearms RegistryOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, it was not a backdoor request. It was part of the supplementary estimates which were tabled last week.

If the hon. member would read the report of the Auditor General he would see that we were talking about numbers that were reported through Justice Canada or other departments. What the Auditor General signaled essentially is that she would like to have a single point of accountability. We are working on that and we will keep proceeding with the registry because we believe in safety.

Point of OrderOral Question Period

December 11th, 2002 / 3:05 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This may be the last chance I will have to put questions to the Prime Minister before we adjourn for the holidays, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish him a Merry Christmas.

I have a very important question for him. We have learned that one of the most prominent citizens of Canada's north, namely Santa Claus, will be visiting the homes of Canadians during the evening of December 24.

This is an arduous journey, which requires enormous preparation.

Could the Prime Minister assure the House that the government, and all ministries and departments are prepared for the arrival of Santa Claus?

Point of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the Leader of the Opposition that we welcome Santa Claus and that all departments will ensure that he can have access to all Canadian families.

He has been very generous with Canada in recent years. He has helped us create 500,000 jobs. He has helped us achieve a level of unemployment the closest to that in the United States in 20 years. He has helped us achieve a sixth consecutive balanced budget, which is unprecedented in the history of this country. And the list goes on.

I think that he has been a very good chrétien and we welcome him. As he has his own way of travelling he will not be obliged to pay the security tax, and he will arrive in homes everywhere.

Point of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I do not think there is a necessity for ruling on that particular point of order.

The right hon. Prime Minister on another point of order?

Point of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, today will be the last time that the leader of the New Democratic Party will be in the House because when we come back she will still be happily a member of Parliament, but she will not be in that seat.

I would like to thank her for the good work she has done over the years as the leader of the NDP. She has been a great addition to the House of Commons. She made very useful contributions and represented her riding and her party very well. I would like to wish her a merry Christmas and a happy new year, and I cannot decide for whom I will be voting.

Point of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generous comments of the Prime Minister, but because my constituents in Halifax, who I am proud to represent, may be wanting some explanation of why I will not be hard at work here in Parliament tomorrow, I want to make it clear that this is not in fact my last day in Parliament as leader of the New Democratic Party. I fully intend to be back here tomorrow hard at work.

Point of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding a matter that occurred in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. While I recognize that committees are masters of their own proceedings, the procedure and House affairs committee has gone beyond its authority by ignoring an order of this House.

Mr. Speaker, there are two issues that you must consider. My first point is the actual charge of contempt, and my second point is the issue of timing, which is not as straightforward as the prima facie case of contempt. However, I am sure you will find that my arguments are sound for raising this question of privilege now.

On November 6, 2002, the House adopted a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The report dealt with improvements to Private Members' Business, namely, providing for all items to be votable. The report in part read:

After much deliberation, the Committee is proposing new procedures for Private Members' Business...We, therefore, propose that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended in accordance with the following principles and instructions.

Without going into details, the committee outlined these principles and instructions. One of the instructions read:

This new procedure will be adopted on a pilot project (provisional) basis from the Fall of 2002 to the end of the 37th Parliament, provided that it is subject to a review by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs after one year.

Mr. Speaker, the clerk was asked to draft the new Standing Orders and he has complied. The draft rules were submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Liberal majority voted them down and referred the matter to the modernization committee. If the Liberals want to refer the matter to the modernization committee they will have to seek the consent of the House and they have not.

I will get to the timing issue in a moment, Mr. Speaker, but please allow me to finish my first point.

On page 854 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

Committees are bound by their orders of reference and may not undertake studies or make recommendations to the House which go beyond the limits established by them.

Citation 760(2) in Beauchesne's 6th edition states:

Committees receive their authority from the House itself and the authority of the House overrides that of any committee.

Citation 831(2) points out that:

A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the Order of Reference [from the House].

This is exactly what the procedure and House affairs committee did. It departed from an order of reference from the House.

I will now address the issue of timing. The date in the fourth report that was adopted by the House stated “the Fall of 2002”. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, fall ends officially on December 21. As you are also aware the House is scheduled to rise on December 13. Therefore after that point the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would clearly be in contempt of the House.

I would argue that since the committee has not agreed to report its decision to the House, and procedurally it is now impossible for the committee to meet, report and have that report adopted, considering it takes 48 hours notice to move a concurrence motion, it is in contempt as we speak.

The Speaker cannot consider the possibility of unanimous consent because the committee will never get that unanimous consent unless it is over my dead body and that of every member of the official opposition. While I cannot speak for other parties, I would think every other opposition member and many members of the government caucus as well would protest such a move. The committee will never get the consent it desires to scuttle and put off these reforms for which many members fought long and hard. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the only avenue you must consider is the so-called normal channel, which as Speaker you are charged with upholding.

The tale of how this contempt occurred began nine years ago. Procedurally it began with the first report of the modernization committee that reported in June 2001. While it is the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider matters of parliamentary reform, the modernization committee was commissioned to do the job because the procedure and House affairs committee failed to do so for nine years. The committee demonstrated how totally incompetent it can be at times. It could be incredibly partisan at others, insular most of the time, and with respect to improving Private Members' Business, disrespectful to members of Parliament.

If you look at the membership, Mr. Speaker, you will see why it was necessary to strip them of their parliamentary reform duties. The membership consists of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the House leader, the chief government whip and the deputy government whip. It is the finest control group ever assembled, all taking orders from the PMO.

The modernization committee reported and it left one item for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs committee. The one item was improvements to private members' business. The member for Yorkton—Melville, a member who knows the reputation of the House affairs committee, moved a motion expecting the committee to carry out the wishes of the modernization committee. It was adopted on June 12, 2001, and it instructed the committee to report in November of that year. The committee reported back to the House seeking an extension in April.

In December the committee did a curious thing. It reported back to the House four months ahead of deadline, that it found the task too difficult. Notwithstanding, and after some pressure from behind the scenes, the committee took up the challenge again and in the first session presented its report to the House.

It reinstated the report in this session and on November 6 the House adopted the report. Yesterday the committee backtracked and kicked the matter back to the modernization committee from whence the first instruction came. I call that completing the circle of incompetence. We have tolerated enough incompetence, enough disrespect and enough contempt.

On page 225 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it states:

Contempt is more aptly described as an offence against the authority or dignity of the House.

The House has ordered the new procedure for private members' business to commence this fall. Pursuant to our rules, it is procedurally impossible for the standing committee to ask for an extension or to ask to refer the matter to the modernization committee. Therefore, it is in contempt.

To comply with the order of the House you will note, Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper and Notice Paper that I have a motion, Motion No. 326, that would give effect to the House order of November 6. It contains the actual Standing Order changes that the clerk was instructed to draft. I will read only the first paragraph because it is a very long motion.

That, pursuant to the motion adopted by this House on June 12, 2001 instructing the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to draft, and report to this House, changes to the Standing Orders improving procedures for the consideration of Private Members' Business, including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable; and pursuant to the adoption of the 4th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on November 6, 2002, which gave effect to the instruction by the House on June 12, 2001, the Standing Orders be amended by replacing Chapter XI with the following:

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you transfer this motion on private members' business to be considered under the rubric motions so as to allow the House to consider these Standing Orders changes pursuant to its order of November 6. I see no other means for which this House could comply with its own wishes.

In conclusion, I urge the Speaker to find a prima facie question of privilege so the House can charge the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs who voted against the authority of the House with contempt. I am prepared to move that motion, if you find the prima facie case.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I also wish, on behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleague who sits on that committee, as well as of all of my colleagues who have sat on it in the past, to inform the House leader of the Canadian Alliance and member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast that we support the question of privilege he has raised.

In this connection, I wish to indicate that, as a member of the sub-committee on private members' business, I undertook in good faith, as did all of my colleagues on both sides of the table in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to perform the arduous task of reviewing and revising the current procedure surrounding private members' business, whether private members' bills or motions.

We had hour after hour of meetings in that sub-committee. We heard from Marie-Andrée Lajoie, who works here at the Table. She did an excellent job of informing committee members of what is involved in amending the Standing Orders. We acted in good faith, therefore. What we were treated to yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House, the government whip and the deputy government whip was not very edifying. One might well wonder if the entire operation was nothing but a sham and a masquerade with the ultimate intention of putting the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs under the thumb of the leaders' committee or even, I might say, of the leader of the government in the House.

If the government House leader states that he was not aware of this procedure, it must be because there are some people on his side of the floor who do not talk to him.

I would therefore like you to take a serious look at the problem, Mr. Speaker. I am certain you will do so with care, and will take a serious look at the question of privilege being raised by the House leader of the Canadian Alliance.

What is of concern to us, our primary focus, is to enhance the role of backbenchers, who are neither ministers nor parliamentary secretaries, giving them the right to represent the interests of those who elected them. That is what we are calling for, regardless of where we are sitting in the House.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the House leader of the Canadian Alliance regarding the question of privilege that he just raised. I will explain why.

As the Bloc Quebecois member pointed out, it is, among other things, because of the way the committee acted yesterday. I am referring mainly to government members.

I was present during the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when it was decided to develop a new rule to discuss whether all private members' bills and motions should be votable items in the House of Commons. I was among those who were not convinced that all motions and bills should be votable items. It is the Liberals themselves, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who said that they should all be votable items.

Now, the Liberals are taking advantage of this opportunity—I was not at that committee yesterday, since I was with the Standing Committee on Finance—to show up with a majority and vote in a way that is contrary to the wishes of the committee.

What is odd here is that the government claims to want to modernize Parliament. However, it is only prepared to do so when it is in the mood. The Liberal member who put the question to the committee was pleased with the idea of voting to elect committee chairs. Now, she does not like the process and wants to discuss it with the modernization committee. I think that she has decided to listen to the Prime Minister.

As for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, it is unacceptable for him to state that he was not aware of the actions of his assistants. Therefore, I recommend that the issue be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a new vote. This time, we must have a real vote, following a debate. The whole thing was done in an underhanded way, and this is a disgrace. It is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to rule on this.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Brandon--Souris I hope will stick to the question of privilege that has been raised rather than the outrage that may or may not have been committed. I am more concerned about the procedural point.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I promise I will not demonstrate much of the outrage.

I, too, am a sitting member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and was present when the change was made quite dramatically. I cannot state the procedural arguments any more succinctly than have already been stated by the House leader of the opposition. I have two points, however.

One is that the motion was to send it back to the modernization committee. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there may well not be a modernization committee struck if in fact this ruling is allowed to stand, because there is no demonstration of democratic reform or any demonstration of democratic opportunity from that side of the House. I agree it is a total contempt of the House when in fact the House has sent direction and it has been overturned by the government.

I would like to simply ask a question. Who sent the order to change the direction and rules of this House? Was it the House leader of the government? Please rule in favour of this breach Mr. Speaker.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I will comment briefly. Perhaps others will want to comment as well.

First, the accusations I believe made against my colleagues are totally unwarranted. They do nothing to enhance the debate. Language such as “shameful” and so on against Liberal MPs who sit on that committee, whether I agree or disagree with how they do business on any particular day, is not appropriate.

I want to get to the substance of the alleged question of privilege that is before the House. If the hon. member will contain himself for a minute, perhaps he would serve us all well.

I understand that the committee will report on--

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John M. Cummins Canadian Alliance Delta—South Richmond, BC

Don, you sound like you need a weekend away.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Have I got a hotel for you to stay at.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been told that the committee will report later this day, which of course it is entitled to do. Once that report is filed, I would suggest that report will then be before the House. Once the report is before the House, then perhaps it would be appropriate, if Mr. Speaker feels he has to judge on this, to do so then.

What we have essentially before the House or what we will have, although it is not there now, once the report is tabled in the House is two different things. One, there was a decision made in the House toward having such a policy in principle. The issue was sent to the parliamentary committee in order to work out what would be the standing order changes to be brought back to the House.

The committee decided, as it is entitled to do--and if members do not think that is the case they are entitled to state that too--that this was not something that the committee wanted to move ahead with. It did so by a majority vote. It will table this particular report in the House later this day.

Then I suppose the House could ultimately be called upon to decide which of the two prevail, the vote that was taken earlier or the one contained in the report that will be tabled now. Either way, depending on how the Speaker adjudicates on the matter, this issue could be sent back to the committee if that is the wish. This latest wish of the committee adopted by the House could then be the new wish of the House in this regard, if that happens to be what we adopt, but we have not yet adopted that. The report has not even been tabled and is not before the House.

There is another point. If it was appropriate for the modernization committee to ask a year and a half or so ago the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look at one aspect, I ask colleagues, who are disagreeing today, why it is similarly inappropriate for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to ask another committee, namely the same one, modernization, to revisit this issue again? Something is inconsistent in that message no matter how one looks at it.

Either way, I just want to review the procedural aspects. This is not before the House yet. It will be shortly. Once it is, members are free to move concurrence or otherwise in the report. If the report is concurred in, I would submit that it would be a new decision of the House. If it is not concurred in, amended and sent back to the committee, then the committee could look at it again. If it is defeated, then I suppose there would be two different propositions and therefore you, Mr. Speaker, would have to judge upon one of the two. However it is not there yet.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I think at this point it would better if the Chair took the matter under advisement. I have heard two sides of the argument. The report of the committee, as the government House leader has pointed out, is likely to be tabled later this day.

If the hon. member wishes to make some submissions I will hear briefly from her on this point. I know she is a member of the committee.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Parrish Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, not only am I the member for Mississauga Centre, but I am the former queen of democracy as of three weeks ago. It was a short crown.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. We are dealing with a question of privilege. It would be helpful if we could hear the submissions of the hon. member, whatever her title may have been.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Parrish Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise primarily because I moved the motion at procedures yesterday. I want to make sure, procedurally, that it is very clear why I did so.

I have been--

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Because you were ordered to.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Parrish Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

No, that is absolutely incorrect. I have been the chair of the private members' business selection committee for many years. I had serious concerns with the direction that the new standing orders were going in.

I asked two questions several weeks ago. First, how would the committee be formed that is going to establish the criteria? Second, how could we accept this without knowing what the criteria are for rejecting bills going into the House that are totally votable?

Those questions were never answered. I believe the job of the committee was not completed. I believe it has to be referred.