Debates of Feb. 19th, 2002

National Defence

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is there a formal document which names the Minister of National Defence as the only civilian eligible for regular briefings on the actions of Canada's special military forces in Afghanistan? If there is such a document, will the government table it in the House immediately?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, all the units, whether it is JTF2 or whoever it is who are sent abroad, go there with terms of reference, with rules of engagement, with instructions with respect to Canadian law and what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. I have the responsibility for that. That is quite clear. If anything out of the ordinary happens, I certainly report to the Prime Minister and to the government.

There has not been anything out of the ordinary. Those troops are doing their job.

National Capital Region

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Public Works and Government Services made an announcement in connection with the office leasing strategy for the national capital region. I congratulate him on this and invite him to share this information with the House.

I would also like to ask him whether he is prepared to review the borders set out by his department in order to avoid creating a no man's land, and to ensure balanced economic development of the national capital region throughout the entire NCR.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to inform the House that this morning I announced that two requests for information will be issued for the leasing of two government buildings in Ottawa. Each of these represents 20,000 meters of space and one is located downtown, while the other is in the eastern part of the national capital region. These are in addition to the two buildings on which I made an announcement in the fine city of Gatineau last week.

I am always pleased to re-examine the perimeters with hon. members, in close collaboration as always with the excellent member for Ottawa—Vanier. We are pleased to be renewing the infrastructure and contributing to economic upturn in the region.

Border Security

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general could not answer the question I just posed a minute ago, so let me ask the parliamentary secretary.

There are 66 land border crossings in Canada that do not have access to CPIC. In other words, public security is being jeopardized by the government because it has not addressed this serious problem.

My question is this. How much longer do we have to wait before the government starts to take public security seriously and ensures that those border crossings have access to CPIC?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that he does not have to wait any time. The Minister of National Revenue and I are certainly aware of the situation and we are dealing with the situation to ensure that security is put properly in place at the border. We are continually upgrading our systems, as we are continually upgrading CPIC.

Foreign Affairs

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just made public his misgivings about President Bush's intentions to extend the fight against terrorism to Iraq.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm for the House that there is no question of Canada repeating the scenario that arose in the case of the Afghan prisoners and that there is no question of Canada changing its stand and obediently falling into line with whatever position the Americans adopt?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already told the House in this regard, the Government of Canada acts in the interests of Canada and of Canadians, and we will act in the interests of Canadians in the future. We are not reacting in the interests of others, but in our own, and that is what we will continue to do.

National Defence

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of National Defence. The defence minister stood in the House year after year and said that the Sea Kings would be replaced by the end of 2005. Everybody in the House and across the country knows there is not one supplier in the world through the split procurement process that can meet that deadline.

I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence one last time: when will the Sea King replacements arrive in Canada? What date?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we are moving as quickly as we can. It is our number one procurement priority. Before this year is out, we will know what the helicopter will be that will replace the Sea King.

Let me say that our Sea Kings are operating. There are in the Afghanistan campaign. They are doing yeoman service. In fact, in the case of the HMCS Vancouver , its particular Sea King helicopter has had 100% availability rate. Over 500 hours have been flown by the Sea Kings in this mission, and they are doing a terrific job with their crews.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Halifax asked if there were current discussions about Canadian military action in Iraq. The Minister of National Defence replied, not to his knowledge. That is not to the knowledge of the only minister who is advised about task force activities in Afghanistan.

If the Minister of National Defence does not know whether there are discussions about military actions in Iraq, who in this government does know?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I said no when I was asked this question previously. There certainly are no formal discussions.

Does someone informally mention it one military officer to another? I do not know. Not to my knowledge. Certainly there are no formal discussions whatsoever, none.

[The Speaker]

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

Government House

Ottawa

February 19, 2002

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Jack Major, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 19th day of February, 2002, at 2.55 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a bill.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Uteck

Secretary to the Governor General

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, It is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada that this honourable House attend him immediately in the chamber of the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:

Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts—Chapter No. 1.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege is resulting from a letter entitled “Federal scrutiny committee most effective in Canada” published on page 5 of the February 18, 2002 edition of the Hill Times newspaper.

From the outset I make it crystal clear that I in no way want to criticize the exemplary services provided to me by the vast majority of staff at the Library of Parliament. However the author of the letter, François Bernier, who happens to be legal counsel for the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, takes sides in a political debate that took place at the February 7 meeting of said committee.

The topic of the debate concerned whether or not the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations has been effective in carrying out its duties with regard to its 1997 finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations are illegal and the tabling of a disallowance report on the illegal regulations.

By writing a letter to the editor of the Hill Times newspaper the legal counsel for the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations has interfered in what amounts to a political debate. It matters little whether he were advised by government members to write the letter on their behalf or whether he is merely adopting their position as his own personal opinion.

Mr. Bernier has undermined the confidence bestowed upon Library of Parliament staff assigned to committees. Any suggestion of partiality or partisanship by committee counsel automatically shows disrespect and amounts to contempt. Questions as to whether or not the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations has been effective or not, or dragged its feet on its 1997 finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licences regulations are illegal and on its handling of the disallowance report on the illegal regulations, are political matters to be debated by members of parliament and not by committee staff on their behalf.

I would not want to infringe upon anyone's right to free expression. However, by sending a letter to the Hill Times using committee letterhead and signing it as general counsel of the committee, he has undermined his responsibility and duty to provide fair and impartial legal counsel to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

I would equate this to the impartiality we expect from the chairs of committees and the Speaker himself. Any partialities shown by the Speaker would provoke a motion to censure and would be considered a matter of privilege.

There are those in parliament who must remain impartial if we as members are to do our jobs effectively and unimpeded. My right as an elected member for the riding of Delta--South Richmond to fair and impartial legal counsel from parliamentary staff has been compromised by the actions of the legal counsel for the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

Should you rule that there exists a prima facie question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, concerning the same question of privilege, I would like to add to the words of my colleague from the Canadian Alliance; however, I want to specify that we must in no way construe this as questioning the skills and intellectual honesty of Mr. François-R. Bernier, who is an asset for the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. His skills and impartiality have never been questioned.

I also read the article in the February 18 edition of the Hill Times. There is obviously a problem that you should deal with. When Mr. Bernier signed this article, he did so as general counsel of the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. We must make a distinction between the opinion of the reader and the opinion of the citizen who has the right to express it.

The point that I want to make is this. The role of the legislative general counsel must be neutral and free of any partisanship—as my colleague who spoke before me has mentioned—as must be the function of speaker that you are holding, Mr. Speaker. But we can also include the function of the clerk, of the library researcher and of the legislative counsel. As parliamentarians, we must receive free and independent advice from people who put political debates aside.

Political debates are held by elected members, here in the House. I would therefore like to join the previous speaker in asking you to deal with this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just add very briefly to this issue to reinforce the points that have already been made. It certainly does occur to me that there has been a lapse of judgment or perhaps poor judgment exercised in Mr. Bernier's involvement in the writing of a letter.

As was highlighted, the moment that he or anyone, for that matter House of Commons staff, invokes their position and puts it on a letterhead, I think it crosses into the realm of potentially exhibiting a bias political or otherwise that could be interpreted by the public.

The Hill Times is a very public document. I would suggest that the content of that could very much be interpreted as his taking a position that is either in line or out of line with any political party here.

I urge the Chair in its wisdom and in its capacity to look into this issue. It may in fact be a matter that should best be handled internally. I think the hon. member from British Columbia was certainly acting within his rights and his privileges by bringing this matter before the House, and I thank him for doing so.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the hon. member for bringing this issue before the House. I have had not had the opportunity to read the letter in question.

Perhaps I could seek your advice on this matter. I would like the opportunity to review the letter, look into the matter and perhaps make a submission to you either orally or in writing at a later time.

[The Speaker]

That is satisfactory to the Chair. I have two questions for the member for Delta--South Richmond. I wonder if he could be more specific in assisting the Chair in which parts of the article is the question he objected to.

The article appears on its face, and I have just had a quick glance at it, to be one to correct errors in some previous article in the Hill Times. If it is more than that I would be interested in knowing because I am unaware of the work of the committee on the particular regulation to which he referred.

If so, which parts of the letter are the ones that he alleges are the ones that appear to breach in some way the privileges of the House.

Second, and I am not trying to confuse by asking two questions at once, could he tell us whether this issue has been raised in the committee? That might assist the Chair since the writer of the letter is the general counsel to the committee. I know the hon. member is a member of that committee. I just wonder if the matter has been raised there with the chair or in the full committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the second question first, the matter has not been raised in committee because the committee has not met. I understood that my obligation was to raise the matter at the first opportunity in the House, and I did so.

In discussing the letter in particular, the substance of the letter was the issue which was under discussion in committee. There was a question about whether or not committee was acting quickly enough and whether in fact letters were sent when direction was given. Those issues were discussed in committee.

There was some disagreement among committee members, as I am sure the Chair would understand, as to the expediency with which things took place, but that was the substance of the discussion in committee.

My view, and I think I expressed it quite clearly at committee, is that this matter was decided in 1997. The committee found that these regulations were beyond the law in 1997. I pointed out to the committee that in other matters which have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada the justices of the supreme court, especially in aboriginal matters, have suggested that the government must deal straight up with people, that it should not be seen to be dealing in a sharp fashion because the integrity and the honour of the crown was at stake.

I suggested to committee members that fishermen on the west coast understand this notion full well. They understand that these regulations have been questioned by the committee since 1997 and in fact have protested. People have gone to jail over this very matter.

The matter is not one without substance. That was the issue before the committee. The concerns that were expressed were that people, citizens, should have faith that their government is acting in an appropriate and proper fashion.

My view was that the committee was dragging its feet. It found that these regulations were illegal back in 1997 and here we are in 2002, many protests later, with people having gone to jail, with literally hundreds of thousands of dollars having been spent on court cases on the very issue of people are trying to protect their livelihood.

That is the debate in which the clerk has engaged in his response in the Hill Times. His responses would most appropriately be made or could have been made by members on the other side but should not have been made by an impartial participant or observer such as the committee chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too was at the committee hearing when we moved to disallow those regulations. To support the hon. member's presentation, the discussion about whether or not people think this is a good idea is a political decision made by politicians. We can all weigh in to the debate in a public way about that.

I agree with the member that committee clerks or legal counsel should not be writing to the paper in what is an obvious attempt to win over public support when their job is to give legal or professional opinions to committee members and politicians of all stripes. They are non-partisan and non-political and very essential contributors to the debate.

I was one of the members to move that motion. One of the other things that prompted many of us to feel it was time to take this kind of a measure was not just the substance of which the member from B.C. has already made mention but also the timing. There is only a certain window when regulations apply. Otherwise the season starts, people start making ad hoc regulations that govern the Fraser River fishery and the timing of it is essential.

We brought it forward deliberately at that time in order to bring this to resolution because once the fishing starts in the Fraser River in my riding it takes on a life of its own. The lack of regulations or improper regulations or, I would argue, illegal regulations have no place when the courts have already said it is time to fix the rules and fix the law before we start bringing in the regulations.

[The Speaker]

I thank the members for their comments and observations. I do appreciate the advice I have received from both sides of the House.

I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wants to have the opportunity to speak to this matter. I will allow a discussion on this at a later date, maybe tomorrow or Thursday, to give him the opportunity to reply.

Insofar as the hon. member for Delta--South Richmond is concerned, while I appreciate the issue he has raised and I am quite prepared to consider it in due course, having heard all of the arguments on it, I would urge him to bring the matter to the attention of the committee at his earliest convenience. In my view this is a matter that probably should be dealt with in committee but I will look at it from the point of view of the House.

The committee may want to take steps based on the submissions he has made here. I know he could repeat them in the committee of which he is a member. Those submissions, in my view, might be relevant to the privileges of the members of the committee who, after all, must carry on their work with the person who has written this letter and in whom he has expressed some misgivings as to his confidence in the ability of that person to continue.

Since the individual is working for the committee that clearly is a matter of considerable importance to the committee and one that he will want to raise there, I would suggest, at the earliest opportunity. I thank him for bringing this matter to the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that everybody deplores the fact that the federal government has been pulling out of the Canada social transfer. Provincial authorities met recently and they also deplore this situation. They are unanimous in saying that the fact that the federal government is backing away is having some very serious consequences and that they have to take action to maintain their health care system.

The problem is that the federal government wants to retain the national standards but is not keeping its promises. It was supposed to pay 50% of health care costs and the provinces had accepted those standards. However, since the deep cuts of 1993-1994, the federal government has been pulling back from its participation in the Canada social transfer to such an extent that it now pays only 14% of the health care costs, yet still wants to enforce national standards.

Therefore, the provinces find themselves in an untenable situation; the population is aging, the cost of medication is rising and research and new technologies are colossally expensive. Financially, the provinces are barely managing, but they still want to provide their citizens with all the services and the health care required. There is a real imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces.

It is often said that the opposition always criticizes anything that the government or its members have to say. It is said that we criticize their policies and that we have nothing else to propose, when all the provinces agree that the government has withdrawn funding. Jean Charest himself, who is not, as we know, a sovereignist, has already blamed the Prime Minister. On May 7, 1997, in a rare moment of conscience, he told the Journal de Québec that the premiers have to manage Ottawa's unilateral cuts. He said:

We see this clearly, across Canada, and not just in Quebec, as some people would have us believe. The health care system has suffered massive cuts by this government. Blaming all the system's problems on poor decisions and mismanagement by the provinces is just plain bad faith.

In a September 22, 1998, press release, the Canadian Medical Association said:

Federal funding cuts to health and social transfers to the provinces have been the main barriers for Canadians' access to quality health care and the cause of the greatest crisis in confidence in our health care system since the inception of Canada's Medicare program in the 1960s.

I could talk about the Canadian Health Care Association, or the members of the old National Forum on Health, who felt the need to expand on their recommendations.

The urgency is very real. Quebec society is being strangled by the federal government and it must fight back. If the federal government again refuses, as it probably will, to meet Quebec's demands, the only solution left will be to unite our citizens with those who believe, as we do, that Quebec will only truly come into its own when it has achieved sovereignty. For Quebec, sovereignty is the road to health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my colleague, who is the deputy finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois. She has been very much involved with health matters and I would ask the health minister to follow the debate.

Can she tell us why increased equalization is not the solution, despite what the intergovernmental affairs minister is telling the House? Could she also show us, and she could perhaps dedicate her answer to the Minister of Health, the impact of this fiscal imbalance?