Debates of Dec. 12th, 2002

Veterans Affairs

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to announce on behalf of the Government of Canada that we are able to pay ex gratia payments to Mr. Trotter and other veterans under similar circumstances. In fact, today I just okayed a letter that will go to Mr. Trotter. If the cheque has not been received, it is already in the mail.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is good news and I appreciate that.

While the minister is in such a good mood, let me point out that Al Trotter did not only fly half of his 44 missions. He flew all of them. He did not serve only half of his time in a prisoner of war camp. He served all of it.

Why will the minister not consider giving these veterans every penny that they have earned?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, when I was seized of the case of Mr. Trotter, I thought it would be only fair to consider all prisoner of war veterans who fell under similar circumstances. We should also indicate that ex gratia payments are also based on the principle of responsible public spending. We have taken all factors into account and we feel that this is an offer of gratitude to Mr. Trotter, and we feel that this is fair.

Maple Syrup Producers

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 87 maple syrup producers in Quebec got a raw deal when a distributor went bankrupt. In addition to not getting paid for their 2000 harvest, these producers are now being forced to reimburse advances given by the federal government under the Advance Payments Program. The Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec estimates the amount of uncollected money to be approximately $2 million.

Does the minister not believe it is time to support the federation, rather than strangling these Quebec producers by forcing them to reimburse subsidies when they were never paid for their syrup?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a business arrangement. This is a business situation that happened between producers and a processor in the province of Quebec. It is one that will have to be worked out according to business standards.

Health

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is once again upholding the Alliance tradition of cheap political maneuvering. Notwithstanding the facts, she argued yesterday that the Standing Committee on Health had backtracked on its commitment to discuss health care reform.

Could the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Health inform the House as to the work and the agenda of the committee?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members should know by now that the standing committee's first responsibility is to review legislation sent to it by the House. We did that, and this morning I reported on Bill C-13. It might have been faster, except for the obstructionist tactics employed by the Alliance members during clause by clause.

In addition to that, three times in the last two weeks Alliance members asked the committee not to meet due to social events they had to attend. Once again they want to have it both ways. It cannot be done.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, the crime rate for Indians is 10 times that of non-Indians in Saskatoon and 12 times in Regina. This problem is exacerbated by a Criminal Code requirement instructing judges to give preferential treatment to Indian criminals.

There are three Indian affairs bills before Parliament, none of which address the chronic problem of Indian crime, nor the racist two tier sentencing provision.

Why is the justice minister opposed to restoring the Criminal Code to guarantee equality and fairness for all Canadians?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the province of Saskatchewan with regard to the situation of natives. We are aware of the situation. We are getting involved with the province through the crime prevention program. We have put in place as well the court worker program. They go together well.

Of course we have to keep working but we are working jointly and in partnership with the province of Saskatchewan.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Dave Williams, one of our Canadian astronauts who has been selected as a crew member for the international space station construction site scheduled to launch in November 2003.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I also wish to advise hon. members, since it is the Christmas season, that there will be a small reception for hon. members in room 216 following the royal assent ceremony which will be held, as hon. members know, at 5 o'clock this afternoon. After the ceremony there will be an opportunity for members to come in and raise a glass to celebrate the season. I invite all members to attend.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Government House

Ottawa

December 12, 2002

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 12th day of December, 2002, at 5 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills of law.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Uteck,

Secretary to the Governor General

Business of the House

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, House Leader of the Official Opposition]

Mr. Speaker,

Thirteen days before Christmas and all through the House, the Prime Minister sat listening to his backbenchers grouse. When all of a sudden there arose such a clatter, I dropped both my crutches and yelled, “What's the matter?” And what did my wondering eyes then behold, But a tiny House leader all decked out in gold. “That is government House leader”, he boldly declared, Then sat at his desk and he glared and he glared. That withering glare made me cower and meek But I still had to ask for his plans for next week.

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

Mr. Speaker, my response will not be in prose and verse. I just have not been hit yet with the attack of Jingle Bells , which undoubtedly seems to be striking here and there in the House.

We will continue this afternoon with the prebudget debate.

Tomorrow we shall consider report stage of Bill C-3, the Canada pension plan amendments. If there is any time left, we would then proceed with Bill C-15 respecting lobbyists. I intend to speak to other House leaders about that.

I shall communicate directly with members concerning the order of business, when we return from the adjournment on January 27. This will include any of the aforementioned business not completed, which includes: Bill C-3 and Bill C-15, obviously; Bill C-2, the Yukon bill; Bill C-6, specific claims; Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendment; Bill C-19, the first nations bill; Bill C-20, protection of children; Bill C-22, the divorce legislation; and Bill C-23 respecting certain offenders.

As members can see, there are lots of items on the legislative agenda.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my best wishes for the holiday season and, of course, a happy new year 2003 to all hon. members, our staff and pages, not to mention the busboys.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. opposition House leader concerning the conduct of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with respect to its obligations following the adoption by the House of the committee's 4th report.

I thank the hon. opposition House leader for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. members for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, Acadie—Bathurst and Brandon—Souris, the hon. government House leader and the hon. members for Mississauga Centre and Peterborough for their contributions on the question.

The hon. opposition House leader rests his case on the House's concurrence on November 6, 2002 in the 4th report of the procedure and House affairs committee. He argues that in so doing, the House gave the committee an order of reference to report to it, before the end of the fall sitting, standing orders that would implement the proposals contained in the report.

I need not remind members that the 4th report of the procedure committee contains a wide ranging proposal for changes to our procedure with regard to private members' business. Notably, this proposal guarantees each eligible member debate on at least one item of private members' business during the course of a Parliament. It also provides, except in certain circumstances, that all items of private members' business would be votable. These recommendations repeat those contained in the committee's 66th report presented in the first session of this Parliament but never taken up by the House.

The Procedure and House Affairs Committee has met to review the draft Standing Orders provided by the Clerk. It considered them in the context of a draft report which recommended that they be made the provisional rules governing private members’ business for the period January 27, 2003 until the end of this Parliament; and further provided for the committee to revisit and perhaps make changes to this provisional regime a year after its coming into force. The committee decided by majority vote not to submit the draft provisional Standing Orders to the House.

Instead, the 14th report of the committee was presented to the House on December 11 recommending the continuation of the existing private members' business procedure “until such time as the Special Committee on... Modernization completes its business and reports to the House of Commons”. I am quoting from the words of the report in that case. The hon. opposition House leader argues that in so doing, the committee displayed contempt for the House and asks the Speaker to find that there thus exists a prima facie breach of privilege.

As all hon. members will know, like previous Speakers I am always reluctant to interfere in the internal proceedings of committees. Our practice has been quite consistent in disputes such as this one. Should a committee report concerning matters related to breaches of privilege or contempt, the Chair stands ready to accept such a report as evidence of a prima facie question of privilege and permit the House to proceed accordingly. I refer hon. members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice , page 827 and to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser on March 20, 1990, at pages 956 to 958 of the

Debates.

The case before us, like many such cases that have been brought before the Chair, is not based on a committee report. Rather the hon. House leader of the official opposition, supported by representatives of the other opposition parties, argues that the procedure committee has acted counter to its order of reference which, as I noted earlier, he interprets as the text of the fourth report in which the House has concurred.

Although I have no intention of entering into a debate on this subject, I believe it is important to note certain facts in this case.

I draw to the attention of the House a statement from the introductory paragraph of the fourth report which reads, and I quote:

We understand that some Members of the House and some Senators, may have concerns with respect to a few of the recommendations in [the 66th] report, and these should be addressed prior to the changes being adopted and implemented.

The proceedings of the committee indicate that attempts have been made to address those concerns.

Furthermore, and perhaps most significantly, the fourth report concludes with the following words:

Accordingly, we would request that the Clerk of the House of Commons draft the necessary changes to the Standing Orders, and that these be submitted to the Committee for approval when the House of Commons resumes sitting in the autumn of 2002.

My understanding is that the Clerk did submit the changes to the committee and that these changes were considered but not approved by the committee. I refer members to the Journals, December 11, at page 298 and to the minutes of the committee that were tabled with the report.

There is quite evidently a serious problem here, but I am not persuaded that it is a procedural problem. The committee has presented a report recommending an alternate course of action to that which the House selected in adopting its fourth report. It is true that in adopting the fourth report, the House has agreed to a new approach to private members' business. However it is also clear from the concluding lines of the fourth report, that the House agreed to have the draft Standing Orders implementing this new approach presented to the committee for its consideration and approval. The committee has considered the matter and recommends no action at this time.

The Chair can appreciate the frustration expressed by hon. members at this turn of events in the committee. If the House is dissatisfied with the recommendation made by the Procedure and House Affairs committee in its 14th report, there are a variety of options at its disposal to convey its wishes to the committee. Refusal to concur in the 14th report or giving a new order of reference to the committee are two possibilities that readily come to mind. Members will, I am sure, be able to think of others.

The committee has sought to carry out the wishes of the House and has seen fit, after this attempt, to recommend an alternate course of action. I can find no procedural irregularity in such a manner of proceeding. It is for the House to choose the course of action which best suits it in light of what the procedure committee has recommended.

Once again, I would like to thank the hon. opposition House leader for having raised this matter, and all other members who contributed to the discussion.

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville on December 4, charging the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment with contempt of Parliament for tabling deliberately misleading information in response to a written question.

I thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, the House leader of the official opposition, and the hon. members for Winnipeg—Transcona and Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for their contributions.

In presenting his case, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville explained that, during the 1st Session of the 37th Parliament, he had asked a written question of the government, as provided for in Standing Order 39(1), concerning the Canadian Firearms Program. On April 24, a response was tabled on behalf of the government by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. The hon. member then presented the procedural basis for a charge of contempt. I summarize his presentation for the House by citing House of Commons Procedure and Practice , page 52, which states:

Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission; it does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member, it merely has to have a tendency to produce such results.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville went on to cite the annual report of the Auditor General, specifically, the study of the Canadian Firearms Program. The Auditor General makes a number of observations critical of the administration of the registry. Among the conclusions the Auditor General reached was that the government had provided the House with incomplete and misleading information concerning the Canadian Firearms Program. The hon. member claimed that the answer to his question fell within the ambit of this misleading information. He then outlined the serious consequences of such behaviour on the public perception of the dignity and the authority of the House.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville highlighted several points in the report of the Auditor General. He cited the apparent failure of the Department of Justice to provide sufficient information to Parliament to allow for a full scrutiny of the gun registry program. He also repeated the claim that the government did not adhere to Treasury Board guidelines and policy in reporting these program expenditures, noting particularly the Auditor General's concerns regarding the lack of an adequate explanation for the program's major supplementary estimates.

Before I respond to the member's concerns, I must first remind members that, in general, the Speaker has no role in reviewing the content of responses to written questions. I refer to Marleau and Montpetit page 443 where a previous ruling makes this quite clear:

The Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate nor to “assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct”.

The Chair's power in this case is limited to whether or not there has been any transgression of our procedural rules or any breach of parliamentary privilege.

Since the hon. member’s case rests in large part on the report of the Auditor General, the Chair has reviewed what that report has to say about the gun registry program.

As members well know, the report raises various serious complaints about the program. However, as your Speaker, it is not up to me to judge the substance of the complaints but rather to ensure that the process for debating or otherwise dealing with them is respected.

Basically, our procedure relating to the business of supply dictates that the government must not spend money on programs without the approval of Parliament. Neither the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville nor the report of the Auditor General have suggested that any program funds were not voted by Parliament.

I would draw the attention of hon. members to page 234 of Maingot's 2nd edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , wherein he lays out the conditions that must be met to constitute a prima facie breach of privilege in such a case:

Before the House will be permitted by the Speaker to embark on a debate in such circumstances...(it must be demonstrated) that a Member of the House of Commons was intentionally misled or an admission of facts that leads naturally to the conclusion that a Member was intentionally misled, and a direct relationship between the misleading information and a proceeding in Parliament is necessary.

In reviewing page 141 of the 19th edition of Erskine May, which the hon. member cited in his arguments, it is also stated that it is “a breach of parliamentary privilege to present forged, falsified or fabricated documents to either House or to Committees of either House”. No evidence has been presented that a specific item in the government response represents a deliberate attempt on the part of the government to present false or inaccurate information.

The argument has been made that the Department of Justice apparently failed to provide sufficient information to members. That is a matter of debate, not a question of privilege.

I would remind all hon. members that the responsibility for pursuing a full investigation of the issues during their study of the main and supplementary estimates in this chamber and in committees rests with them. Members require adequate and accurate information to undertake appropriate oversight of government spending. However, it is for members themselves to judge the amount and form of the information provided. For example, recent changes to our Standing Orders provide an extended study in the chamber of specific votes in the main estimates.

The role of Parliament in overseeing government spending has long been a source of concern for hon. members and for observers and commentators on Parliament. Perhaps the airing on this issue will lead to better planning of the study of the estimates over the course of each Parliament. The recent creation of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates appears to offer an excellent forum for developing creative solutions to the daunting challenge of effective parliamentary oversight of government spending in this day and age. I use the prerogative of the Chair to encourage members in this regard.

Under the circumstances, however, I can find no procedural grounds for finding a prima facie breach of privilege in this case. I wish to thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for his well-researched and thoughtful intervention on this matter, as well as other hon. members.

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the right hon. member for Calgary Centre arising from question period?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience. I am really rising to reserve a right to raise a potential question relative to a matter that flowed out of question period today.

The Minister of Justice indicated again in question period today with respect to the $72 million, which expenditure that had been denied by Parliament, that he had found other sources in the department but that the taking of that $72 million from the Department of Justice would have no impact on that department's other operations.

We are all familiar with the practice of exercising recourse to Treasury Board for money taken from a contingency fund that would subsequently be authorized at a later date and later paid back.

I think what we may have here is either an action being taken by the government that is exactly contrary to a decision of Parliament to deny the spending of that $72 million or we have an action whereby the government is using funds for reasons other than the reasons for which those funds were appropriated by Parliament.

My colleague from South Shore and I are looking into the circumstances of this case, but I wanted to take the first opportunity available to me to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege on a later occasion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member is alleging that the Minister of Justice will use funding under what is called Treasury Board Vote 5. The Minister of Justice said nothing of the sort. A review of the minister's statement of today would confirm that.

The Minister of Justice committed himself this morning to fulfilling his duties with respect to the firearms registry within the existing authority. He clearly said that. That authority, and we can review it, consists of the Firearms Act and the Appropriation Act passed as Bill C-59 in June 2002.

The minister has indicated that if in managing the funds voted to him last June he requires additional funds to deal with his responsibilities under the Firearms Act, he will come back to the House with a supplementary estimate. We still another round of those before the end of the fiscal year, as the right hon. member will know or should know.

In other words, the minister has said that he will operate within the authority already granted by Parliament and if this is not sufficient, he will ask Parliament for further authority. There is nothing in this that constitutes either contempt or in any way disrespect for this great institution. It is the exact opposite.

[The Speaker]

I do not think we need hear more on this because the right hon. member is simply reserving his right to raise this. He has not raised it, really, and because he wanted not to be accused of not raising it at the earliest opportunity, I presume, he indicated to the House that he was raising it now in case he finds out other facts that back up his argument, and then he would make more arguments.

The government House leader has certainly issued his point of clarification. I do not think we need hear further at this point because even the right hon. member admitted he did not have a question of privilege yet. He might get one but he has not got one yet. He wanted to make sure his rights to raise this were protected.

In the circumstances, I can thank him for bringing the matter to the Chair's attention and we will hear from him further should the need arise.

The Chair has received another notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding the premature and unauthorized disclosure of the minority report of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, tabled this morning.

As you know, the contents of the reports of the various House committees have always been considered confidential, up until the moment reports are tabled in the House. Incidentally, page 884 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice is very clear on this, and I quote:

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

Furthermore, on the same page, it states:

Even when a report is adopted in public session, the report itself is considered confidential until it has actually been presented in the House. In addition, where a committee report has been considered and approved during in camera committee meetings, any disclosure of the contents of a report prior to presentation, either by Members or non-Members, may be judged a breach of privilege.

I know that the Chair has—on numerous occasions, including in the December 9, 1997 ruling by your predecessor, Speaker Parent—refused to recognize that there has been a breach of parliamentary privilege in cases of leaks of committee report contents before they were tabled in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is different in this case. Judging by the various newspaper articles I sent to your office this morning, it seems clear that certain members of the Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs gave interviews which to a large extent enabled reporters to learn the contents of the report before it was even tabled here in the House.

I am referring to the interviews given by our colleague, the member for Laval East, and the Canadian Alliance member for Langley—Abbotsford. Such practices are unacceptable. They discredit the serious nature of the work of parliamentarians in general, and the work of the committee in particular.

The sources are clear. Our colleagues for Laval East and Langley—Abbotsford have clearly breached my privileges as a member of the committee. All MPs on that committee were contacted on numerous occasions to give interviews. We will all agree that this is a subject of interest to parliamentary reporters, but there cannot be a double standard here.

I would fault the member for Laval East in particular, since she belongs to the majority party and, as such, ought to exhibit exemplary conduct.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to bring down a ruling for once and for all. You are the guardian of our responsibilities. You are the guardian of our privileges as parliamentarians. If a member of this House does his level best in committee, but committees are not places where confidentiality or commitment and respect of one's word must prevail, and the Chair does not call a halt to certain practices which are becoming far too frequent, far too common, then I would respectfully submit that committee work will no longer have any meaning.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you entertain my question of privilege. If you authorize me to do so, I will move the appropriate motion under the Standing Orders.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out that in his statement, my hon. colleague asked that majority members behave in exemplary fashion. I hope he does not mean by that that those members who are not majority members are exempt from such behaviour.

Second, just a few days ago, a preliminary report dealing with the issue under consideration in this committee was released. This goes to show that much was already in the public domain.

Third, I want to associate myself with what my hon. colleague opposite said in this respect. The issue of leaks that breach the confidentiality of reports before they are released to the public is not a new one. It has been a problem for some time. Not so long ago, not quite two years ago, I remember speaking out against the approach taken by the then member for Berthier—Montcalm, who granted an interview on the Sunday morning when the report was to be tabled on the Monday.

I do not find this kind of thing acceptable. I agree with the principle. I am simply challenging today's allegation that this principle whereby reports must remain confidential until they are tabled has been violated by my colleagues. I prefer to stick to facts. These are that a report was tabled, and there have been extensive discussions about its contents before the report was finalized. This in no way suggests that the final report was made public earlier than it should have been.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to state that the member they were referring to has been ill, is in the hospital and is recovering right now.

I would hope that if there is anything the Speaker would like we would hold off until we come back in the New Year, when I am sure he will be healthy and wealthy after the holiday season and able to explain. I know he is a well respected member of the House and would not be leaking anything in advance, anything that should not be leaked, because he is very much a hardworking member of that committee.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the allegations of the deputy government whip are unfounded, although not deliberately so, I imagine.

But let us be clear. The special committee on drugs, it is true, passed a motion, and an initial part of our report was released. But the statements made and the interviews given by the two hon. colleagues whom I mentioned dealt with the section specifically released this morning--Chapter 9 on marijuana.

I am therefore asking the deputy whip not to use diversionary tactics and to stick to the facts. All parliamentarians in the House must conduct themselves in an exemplary fashion. I agree with him. However, this responsibility is even greater for members of the ruling party because the government has an executive responsibility. So let us be clear. I am asking that the deputy government whip not use diversionary tactics.

Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of our freedoms. Breaching the code of honour, which should guide all members of the House, is unacceptable. Giving interviews on the substance of a report before that report is released demonstrates a lack of honour.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise two points very briefly. I do not want to take too much of the House's time on this matter.

First, I want to inform my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance that I never referred to anyone leaking anything. I fully respect the possibility that the hon. colleague did nothing reprehensible in this regard.

The matter--decriminalizing marijuana use--that was debated or talked about by the media has been the subject of public debate in the House for many many months now. There is nothing new here. This is a tempest in a teapot.