Debates of Sept. 15th, 2003

Electoral Boundaries

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member and indeed the entire House that I intend to introduce such legislation later this day in order to give effect to the bill as early as next April 1.

I want to thank members on all sides of the House who brought forward this suggestion to me in the past. I also asked the parliamentary committee to undertake a study about the future of this measure and a one year provision, with a view to shortening it permanently.

Elections Act

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader and is along the same line as the previous one.

As a result of the latest reform of the Elections Act, only those parties which meet the 50 candidate rule qualify for an allowance of $1.75 per vote obtained. In the spirit of the decision mentioned by the previous speaker, it is clear that such an advantage is contrary to the charter.

In light of the upcoming election in the next few months, how does the government intend to amend its legislation to comply with the Supreme Court decision?

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

Mr. Speaker, these are two separate issues. The hon. member's remarks were about the new electoral map. The question the hon. member opposite is asking me concerns the decision in the Miguel Figueroa case before the Supreme Court.

The government intends to respond through legislation to make the necessary changes within a few weeks.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, Jane's Defence Weekly military magazine reports that our Canadian Forces are in a state of crisis caused by reduced spending on military equipment and personnel, but while it argues that the damage will be irreversible, the minister insists “we are making progress”.

Well, if we are making progress, where are the Sea Kings' replacements? Where is the money for the parts for the Hercules? Where is the $200 million he needs to find? Why is the minister so impotent when it comes to the military? When is he going to get some money?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that many of my cabinet colleagues would enjoy the impotence in the form of an $800 million increase in their base budget. That is a lot of money and the government has put that to very good use dealing with some of the issues that the hon. member has raised.

We have put this into spare parts, into training, into medical attention. We have increased our capital budget. We have done a whole range of measures to increase both the sustainability and the transformation of the Canadian armed forces.

Foreign Affairs

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence as well. Last week the minister publicly patted himself on the back about the progress of talks with Bush on the star wars missile defence. We need the minister to come clean on who is driving the star wars talks because certainly Parliament is not.

Why is the minister taking direction from the next Liberal leader and not from this Parliament?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am not patting myself on the back. I am just stating that there have been a number of meetings over the summer. They seem to be progressing well. There may be a long way to go in these long conversations about matters of such importance to Canada. While the NDP may think it makes good policy to negotiate with the Americans in public through the media, that is not the position of the government.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Cecil Clark, Minister of Energy of Nova Scotia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has notice of two questions of privilege. The first is from the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville. I will hear the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville on his question of privilege.

Privilege

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr.Speaker, I wrote to you on July 17, 2003 to give you notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege with respect to: first, misleading statements made by the justice minister in the House on February 3, 2003; second, similar misleading statements made in a new release issued by the justice minister's department that same day; and third, the failure of the justice minister to provide all the documents requested by the Auditor General in her office's letter to his department dated February 14, 2003.

We were not made aware of these misleading statements or the Auditor General's letter until Tim Naumetz reported it in several CanWest newspapers on July 16, 2003. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this matter as Parliament has been in summer recess until today.

I will start by listing the documents I have reviewed in preparing my question of privilege today and that I will have delivered to your office today: first, a copy of the National Post article that broke the story dated July 16, 2003 titled “Auditor-General raised alarm over gun registry audit: Justice Department misrepresented financial review, officials said”; second, a copy of the letter from the Auditor General's office to the deputy minister of justice dated February 14, 2003; third, a copy of page 3068 from the Commons Debates dated February 3, 2003; fourth, a copy of the news release issued by the Department of Justice dated February 3, 2003 titled “Minister Of Justice Releases Results Of Independent Gun Control Program Reviews”; fifth, a copy of the KPMG transmittal letter to the justice department dated January 31, 2003; sixth, a copy of the KPMG report titled “Canadian Firearms Centre: Report of Findings from the Performance of Specified Procedures” dated January 31, 2003; and seventh, a copy of the Hill Times article from Monday, August 4, 2003 titled “[Minister of Justice] in contempt of Parliament: Alliance MP Says Justice Minister misled House over gun registry boondoggle”.

After reviewing the justice minister's statements in Hansard and in his press release, I have come to the conclusion that the minister is in contempt of Parliament. The evidence is overwhelming.

The crux of the case is the minister's statement in the House on February 3, 2003 when he said:

--the KPMG study assured the department that the information compiled about past spending was accurate...

I underline the word accurate.

However, on February 14 the Auditor General's office informed the justice minister that the KPMG study did not do this because KPMG did not conduct an attest audit.

In the letter from the Office of the Auditor General to Mr. Morris Rosenberg, deputy minister of justice, dated February 14, 2003, assistant auditor general, Mr. Hugh McRoberts, wrote:

We are concerned that there may be insufficient information in the KPMG Report to support the conclusions in the Press Release. We would like to be able to respond to any Parliamentary concerns about the KPMG Report that may be raised in the forthcoming hearings.

There are two statements in the Department's Press Release that are causing concern. These statements conclude that the KPMG Report--

For everyone's benefit I would like to point out that these are quotes right from the minister's press release.

“Has allowed the Department of Justice to confirm that the necessary systems are in place to ensure the integrity and completeness of relevant financial data; and

This work has provided the Department with confidence that the information compiled on past expenditures is accurate”.

We are concerned that the work described in the KPMG report and accompanying transmission letter does not appear to be sufficient to support these statements. For example, KPMG states on page 2 of its Report that “the procedures performed on the expenditures are limited, they do not constitute an attest audit of the expenditures of the Canadian Firearms Centre”. Further, KPMG states that it is not expressing an audit opinion on the expenditures of the Centre or the Canadian Firearms Program.

Since KPMG's work was of a limited nature and was not an attest audit, we are concerned that it may be being inappropriately used in the Press Release to draw conclusions about the integrity and completeness of the Departmental financial information on the expenditures of the Centre or the larger Canadian Firearms Program.

I think the use of the word “may” was being polite. The fact is that the minister's press release of February 3, 2003 was inappropriately used. The quotes in the press release speak for themselves.

In fact, on page 2 of the assistant auditor general's report to the deputy minister of justice he stated:

We continue to be concerned about this issue because Parliamentary debates relating to information in the Department's Press Release suggest that the KPMG work is being interpreted as having been an attest audit of Program expenditures; and that the KPMG has concluded that the Department's financial information on the Program is complete and accurate.

Here is the contentious quote from the minister's press release:

The first report, by consulting firm KPMG, has allowed the Department of Justice to confirm that the necessary systems are in place to ensure the integrity and completeness of relevant financial data. This work has provided the Department with confidence that the information compiled on past expenditures is accurate.

Not only did the justice minister show his contempt for Parliament and the public by making public these misleading conclusions in his press release but he also said much the same thing in the House of Commons on February 3 during routine proceedings.

This is a direct quote from the justice minister from page 3068 from the Commons Debates for that day:

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the KPMG study assured the department that the information compiled about past spending was accurate and corresponds to the figures submitted to this House in the public accounts. In addition, the KPMG report provides us with a basis for continuing to report the full costs of the program, as requested by the Auditor General of Canada.

Based on the concerns raised by the Office of the Auditor General about the limited nature of the KPMG report, it is clear to everyone that the justice minister misled the House with this statement and represents a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament.

The 22nd edition of Erskine May on page 63 describes ministerial responsibility and states:

--it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;

On page 119 of Erskine May's 21st edition it states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

A Speaker in 1978 ruled a matter to be a prima facie case of contempt where the RCMP were alleged to have deliberately misled a minister of the crown and the member for Northumberland--Durham resulting in “an attempt to obstruct the House by offering misleading information”.

More recently the Speaker ruled a question of privilege to be prima facie on February 1, 2002. It involved the Minister of Justice who made misleading statements in the House. In that case the minister advised the Speaker that he had no intention of misleading the House, which would not make it deliberate. Nevertheless the Speaker felt that it was in the best interest of the House to have a committee look into the matter.

The Speaker said:

I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House. Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation. I refer hon. members to Marleau and Montpetit at page 67:

“There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties;...”

On the basis of the arguments presented by the hon. member and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage-Lisgar to move his motion.

The facts are clear. The justice minister's statements in the House were not accurate. For this he should be found in contempt of Parliament.

Since the minister's deputy received the letter from the Office of the Auditor General on February 14 warning him of the inaccurate statements in his press release, the minister has not corrected the public record nor has he corrected the statements he made in the House about the KPMG report. For this he should be found in contempt.

The minister must also have known that they were not accurate at the time he made them. Consequently, he knowingly misled the House, and for this he should resign.

Finally, the February 14 letter from the Office of the Auditor General pointed out even more contemptible behaviour on the part of the Minister of Justice and the officials in his office.

On page 2, the assistant auditor general wrote:

We understand that KPMG may have provided additional verbal or written assurance to the Department to allow it to form the conclusions in the Press Release. We would appreciate receiving the letter sent to the Department from KPMG indicating that it had provided assurances to the Department to support the statements the Department made in the Press Release. We would also appreciate it if the Department would obtain and forward to us copies of KPMG working papers that support the specific assurances it made to the Department and which support--

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I think the hon. member has made his point and now he is going off on what I would have to regard as a tangential argument that might be helpful but I suspect it is not. I wonder if he could perhaps bring his remarks to a conclusion. I sense he is getting near the end but I cannot tell how many pages there are left of his helpful notes.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have about 20 seconds left.

The letter continues on to say:

--the statements in the Press Release.

As well, we would appreciate receiving any analysis the Department conducted on the KPMG work or any other work it did to support the above cited conclusions.

In conclusion, it is my understanding that all the information requested in the assistant auditor general's letter has not been provided by the department. If your investigation proves this point, then the justice minister has also shown his contempt for the Office of the Auditor General, a respected officer of Parliament.

There is a volume of evidence here, as is obvious by this lengthy intervention. If the Speaker agrees with the documented evidence I presented today, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the question of privilege, at least the alleged question of privilege.

The hon. member for Yorkton--Melville alleges that the Minister of Justice has, in his view, misled the House of Commons concerning the findings of a report by KPMG on the financial records of the firearms program.

On February 3 the Minister of Justice tabled a report in the House of Commons. We all recall that. When tabling the document, the minister stated:

...the KPMG study assured the department that the information compiled about past spending was accurate and corresponds to the figure submitted to this House in the public accounts.

The member for Yorkton--Melville relies upon the letter dated February 14 from the assistant auditor general to the deputy minister of justice to support his claim that the minister, in his view, misled the House. However the letter from the assistant auditor general does not state that the minister misled Parliament. I am sure Mr. Speaker will become acquainted with that. Rather, the letter is focused on a potential misinterpretation that the KPMG report is a so-called attest audit of the program.

At most, the Auditor General states that “there may be insufficient information in the KPMG report”, and that the Office of the Auditor General “would like to be able to respond to any parliamentary concern about the KPMG report that may be raised in forthcoming hearings”. And of course the Auditor General regularly testifies before a committee of Parliament.

I submit that this is a matter for debate and not at all a question of privilege. The Minister of Justice tabled a report in the House so that it is available for the scrutiny of members. The minister tabled a report to meet his commitment to be open and transparent with the House on firearms issues. That is not the responsibility of another minister of the crown.

The member for Yorkton--Melville, thanks to the minister, was provided access to that information. If he disagrees with the minister's interpretation insofar as the result of the report is concerned, of course he is free to do so. That is what debate is all about.

MPs can question the government over findings of the report, or any other report, in question period, in committee or in subsequent adjournment debates at the end of the day, and MPs are able to seek the views of the Auditor General on the scope of the report all the time, as I indicated a while ago.

In fact, the public accounts committee already investigated this matter on February 24 when the minister and the Auditor General appeared on the firearms program. At that meeting the Auditor General clarified the fact that the study was not an attest audit. That was clarified on February 24 and presumably has remained clear since then. The Hansard or the committee report will attest to that.

On the basis of this information, it is clear that no question of privilege exists or at least not in this matter.

[The Speaker]

I want to thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for his usual zeal in pursuing this matter and certainly for the assistance that he and the government House leader provided to the Chair in dealing with this matter. I understand he is going to deliver a volume of material to the Speaker's office later this day for me to read. I will plow through it at some point and then return to the House in due course with a decision in respect of the issues raised by the hon. member and responded to by the government House leader.

I have notice of another question of privilege from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to cite what I believe to be an affront to the dignity and authority of Parliament and, therefore, a contempt of this House by the courts.

I am going to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to two sentences that were first used by a justice in 1998, repeated in support of a decision in 2001, and then again cited in a decision in 2003. The reason why I could not bring this before the House earlier was that I only became aware of these two sentences when they were cited in the third case in 2003.

I shall read the paragraph, but first, let me impress upon you that the issue that was before the courts is not relevant to the argument that I am making today in the House. The matter needs to be considered by the weight of the words alone. This is what was said by Mr. Justice Iacobucci in Vriend v. Alberta in 1998 and repeated, as I said, several times subsequently:

In my opinion, groups that have historically been the target of discrimination cannot be expected to wait patiently for the protection of their human dignity and equal rights while governments move toward reform one step at a time. If the infringement of the rights and freedoms of these groups is permitted to persist while governments fail to pursue equality diligently, then the guarantees of the Charter will be reduced to little more than empty words.

I will demonstrate a little later that the use of the word government in this citation is meant to mean government as we understand it in this House, where a majority of parliamentarians make decisions with respect to legislation and introduce legislation.

The problem is simply this. Implicit in these words is the suggestion that a government--that is, Parliament--is not capable of moving with alacrity in bringing reforms to society. It implies that some other authority should be charged with bringing the reforms forward that the authority deems appropriate.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that absolutely erodes the democratic principles of this House. I think most Canadians believe, perhaps not some justices but most Canadians, that this place exists in order to bring change to society, but bring change to society in a democratic forum. In other words, we have to have an eye toward the people who elected us.

To suggest that some other authority should take over from Parliament to bring in reforms because Parliament is not acting as fast as that authority thinks is appropriate--and that authority in this case is the courts--then I think that is an affront to Parliament.

Furthermore, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to examine these two sentences very carefully because when the justice made these remarks he also stated:

If the infringement of the rights and freedoms of these groups is permitted to persist while governments fail to pursue equality diligently,...

Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible affront to members of Parliament because I do not think there is a single person on either side of this House that does not believe that we should be bringing in equality diligently.

The problem is that we might want to bring in reforms and want to make everything equal for all Canadians, but we have to balance the conflicting interests of other Canadians. That is what a democracy is all about. To suggest that people in this place or the other place are not pursuing equality diligently is an absolute affront to the House. It is very contemptuous of the House.

The impact of these words was profound and that is why I am standing here because this obviously reflects a form of judicial activism that sets the courts above Parliament in formulating laws and it did have an immediate impact. I do not know the details of the case that was being heard by Mr. Justice Iacobucci, although I suspect it was on the same issue that was subsequently heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the case of Halpern in 2001.

Here is the impact of those two sentences. Mr. Justice LaForme, in the Halpern case, in section 306 if the table officers would like to look it up, begins:

First, I do not accept that some form of legislative response to this issue that goes about implementing the denied rights of the Applicants in some piecemeal form is appropriate. ...I would agree with the comments of Iacobucci J. when he considered a not dissimilar issue in Vriend.

In other words, Mr. Justice LaForme is saying that the courts should not accept the right of Parliament to bring in legislation to address an issue.

I would submit to the House that it is none of the court's business whether that legislation is brought in piecemeal, that is, over one day, another day, one year or another year.

The point is that Mr. Justice LaForme admits, in his comments here, that Parliament is aware of the issue and Parliament is prepared to act. He simply says that if Parliament does not act all at once and in the way that the courts previously have decided should be the way Parliament should act, then what is the point of Parliament?

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the problem is the courts when they hear charter cases--any case for that matter--look to the decisions that occurred in the past as precedent. Sure enough, this issue again came before the B.C. Court of Appeal in the Barbeau case, and I refer members to paragraph 151, we find Mr. Justice Iacobucci's words being cited yet again.

I do not have the expertise to determine whether this is indeed a breach of privilege and a contempt of Parliament. I defer the matter to the House.

However, should the House find that there is a prima facie case and that this is worth looking into, I would suggest that Parliament call before the bar one of the justices who have used this particular citation of Mr. Justice Iacobucci and have him stand before the House and explain why he thinks that Parliament should not be allowed to go ahead with legislation or change in society in a piecemeal fashion. He should explain why he feels that the MPs in the House do not want to pursue equality diligently. I would like the courts to explain to the higher court their reasoning in this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot for bringing the matter up. I will not say anything more. The member has made a great representation. I know the Speaker will use his usual wisdom in looking into this and if there is a case we will follow through with it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to also lend my support to the argument made by the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.

This is very similar to the argument that was made with regard to the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision with regard to the constitutionality of the definition of marriage.

In its decision and because of its decision it also decided that the change would be effective immediately on a matter which has clearly been so divisive and sensitive in Canada. Three judges changed the laws and changed them immediately thereby pre-empting Parliament's right to continue the work of the justice committee and its report.

I believe that this judicial activism has been breeding for some time. I believe that the points raised by the hon. member who raised the question of privilege bears some consideration. It does touch on the fundamental supremacy of Parliament, the issue of judicial activism and the rights and privileges of parliamentarians to do the work that they were elected to do.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot for having raised the matter, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for his usual helpful comments and the hon. member for Mississauga South for the same.

The Chair will take these matters under advisement and get back to the House in due course with a ruling that I trust will meet in every respect the desires of the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.

National Child Benefit

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to present today two copies, in both official languages, of the National Child Benefit Progress Report: 2002.

Order in Council Appointments

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 100 petitions.

Public Service Integrity Officer

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, two copies of the first annual report of the Public Service Integrity Officer for the period 2002-03.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-49, an act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003.

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

Committees of the House

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, May 27, 2003, in relation to Bill C-36, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence.

Having carefully considered Bill C-36, the committee has agreed to report it with amendments.