Debates of Sept. 24th, 2003

Firearms Program

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first it is not a bottomless money pit. We said in the beginning that yes, there have been some problems in the past. The Minister of Justice and I in an announcement in the spring announced an action plan of which we would bring those costs under control.

The gun registry has been transferred to the Department of the Solicitor General. We have in fact brought the costs under control and that is what the estimates are now showing. The costs are under control and we are not spending a penny more than was targeted.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has notice of two questions of privilege, one from the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, whom we will hear first.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Solicitor General misled this House and impeded my ability to function as a member of Parliament.

Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board tabled supplementary estimates (A) in this House. On pages 13 and 88 of the supplementary estimates it is stated, “Canadian Firearms Program New Appropriation $10,000,000”.

Later in the day in response to a question during question period, the Solicitor General said, and I am quoting from page 7705 of Hansard :

We are not, through these supplementary estimates, asking Parliament for one more cent for the firearms program. Not one more cent. The money is not new money. The money was approved by Parliament and the money is within the spending targets that we announced earlier.

If the Solicitor General is right, then the supplementary estimates are wrong. If the Solicitor General is right, then Parliament is going to be voting for the same money twice. This cannot possibly be.

Page 22 of the supplementary estimates (A) clearly states, and I quote:

Vote 7a

Canadian Firearms Centre--Operating expenditures--To authorize the transfer of $84,840,694 from Justice Vote 1, Appropriation Act No. 2, 2003-2004 for the purposes of this Vote and to provide a further amount of ...$10,000,000.

I repeat, “to provide a further amount of $10,000,000”. Do the words “further amount” not mean new money?

The Solicitor General's statement yesterday put in question the status of a particular item in the estimates. That status, as the minister described it, would prevent members from proceeding in what I would consider the normal process for considering the supplementary estimates.

Its status has a significant impact on my role as a member of Parliament. All members of the House need to know if they can treat this item as a typical item in the supplementary estimates, namely, whether or not members can (a) reduce this amount at committee, (b) oppose the item on the last allotted day in the supply period and (c) include it as the subject matter of a supply motion in the context of “new money”.

On page 733 of Marleau and Montpetit it is stated:

Supplementary Estimates often include what are known as “one dollar items”, which seek an alteration in the existing allocation of funds as authorized in the Main Estimates. The purpose of a dollar item is not to seek new or additional money, but rather to spend money already authorized for a different purpose. Since “estimates” are budgetary items, they must have a dollar value...the “one dollar” is merely a symbolic amount.

Vote 8a on page 88 of the supplementary estimates is a symbolic dollar amount. Vote 7a, Canadian Firearms Centre operating expenditures, is not a symbolic one dollar amount, but a $10 million amount. When the Solicitor General said the $10 million was “not new money”, he misled me, every member of this House, the media and the general public.

The Speaker will recall that we went through the same song and dance last year when the supplementary estimates were tabled. No one, not even you or your staff, Mr. Speaker, could figure out how much we had voted on in the 2002-03 main estimates. Even Treasury Board officials had to ask the justice department.

But this year is different. When the main estimates were tabled on March 27, 2003, we were assured that they included the entire $113.1 million annual budget for the Canadian firearms program. This as the total program spending was approved by Parliament when the main estimates were approved in June. The Solicitor General's statement that it is “not new money” defies common sense, because it means that we would now have to vote for another $10 million that we already voted for last June.

Finally, if the Solicitor General's interpretation of the supplementary estimates is correct, how many of the other 24 “new appropriations” totalling $5.5 billion fall into the same category? Is the $10 million for the firearms program the only one that is not “new money”?

In the 17th century, the pre-eminent English judge Sir Edward Coke described the House as the general inquisitors of the realm. Ever since then it has become customary to refer to the House as “the grand inquest of the nation”.

Page 697 of Marleau and Montpetit describes the direct control of national finance as the “great task of modern parliamentary government”. On page 225 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , he describes contempt as “an offence against the authority or dignity of the House”.

An attempt to fool members into believing that the $10 million in vote 7a is not new and therefore subject to scrutiny or reduction is an affront to the dignity of the House and disrespectful to its role as “the grand inquest of the nation” and its so-called “great task” of controlling the public purse.

To perform these fundamental functions the House has always insisted on accurate and truthful information. That is why the making of misleading statements in the House must be treated as contempt.

Yesterday the Solicitor General clearly misled the House.

I am prepared to move the appropriate motion should the Speaker rule that the matter is a prima facie case of privilege.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member I believe knows or should know perfectly well that the accusation he is making against the minister in question is totally invalid. He may have, by mistake, he and his leader, asked for the information at the beginning of question period without knowing better. That is it, people do that from time to time around here, but after, he was corrected, and rightfully so, by the minister and informed of the content of page 88 of the supplementary estimates, which describes quite well that the dollar is the mechanism by which the transfer is made from one department to another and does not involve additional funds. It involves the funding in question to be transferred from one minister to another, but not additional funding to be put in. The explanatory note is there for everyone to see.

Additionally, if the member wants to question the minister insofar as is it a good idea for this particular minister to administer versus another minister, if that is what he wants to do, that is why the estimates are referred to committee: so that these kinds of questions can be asked. Now that is a different proposition altogether. But to state that the transferring of responsibility from one minister to another, the parallel one dollar amount that actually gives effect to it in the supplementary estimates is wrong, is simply inaccurate.

Finally, imagine the reverse situation. Had we published the supplementary estimates today, transferred the responsibility fully as we did and chosen not to make this transfer, this same MP would be standing up and saying, “Wait a minute, the estimates are wrong. You transferred that responsibility and you failed to put it in the estimates”. The hon. member cannot have it both ways.

In any case, I am quite willing to return to the House with additional information if the Speaker chooses to delay his ruling in that regard. The information we have is that we have used the most transparent method in order to transfer the funding in question from one department to another but at the same time not adding, as the minister, the Solicitor General in this case, has indicated to the House today, other than the one dollar symbolic amount, which gives effect to the transaction.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual that is about as clear as mud from the government House leader. We have before us the supplementary estimates that state in clear English new expenditures, of which that column contains the amount of $10 million.

On a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have requested that any issues related in particular to procedural aspects of a supply bill be brought forward immediately, which is what is happening here, but I direct your attention to page 88. On that page, under the Solicitor General, relating to the infamous and disgraced gun registry and the Canadian Firearms Centre, it states uncategorically that the House is being asked to approve a new appropriation of $10 million for vote 7a and a further amount of $1 under item 8a. These amounts are clearly described as new appropriations under the estimates that have been recommended to the House by the Governor General.

Also on the same page there is a column labelled “transfer”. This is to transfer existing spending authority within the government, which is what the government House leader is talking about. But clearly, by listing the $10 million as a new appropriation rather than a transfer there is no existing authority for this transfer to take place in expenditures. The House is being asked for new authority.

I turn now to the “Proposed Schedule 1” of the appropriation bill found at page 22 of the supplementary estimates. There we find listed under the Canadian Firearms Centre vote 7a an amount of $10 million and, under vote 8a, an amount of $1, again, listed at page 22 as new appropriations.

I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to what the previous member has referred to: the Solicitor General's response in question period yesterday, September 23, to a question raised by the member for Dauphin--Swan River. The Solicitor General stated:

We are not, through these supplementary estimates, asking Parliament for one more cent for the firearms program. Not one more cent. The money is not new money. The money was approved by Parliament--

Mr. Speaker, I could argue semantics, that at the very least the government is asking for one new dollar, but the crux of the matter is that $10 million is being asked for under “new appropriation”. The Governor General's demand is very clear. The words are very clear: “new appropriation”. The Solicitor General says the money is not new. The estimates and the proposed supply bill call it new. They do not call it a transfer. They call it a new appropriation.

In conclusion, if the Solicitor General is correct and there is no request for new money, the supplementary estimates are incorrect.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, and it stemmed from the report of the Auditor General concerning the lack of truthfulness and frankness in Parliament, the general incompetence of the government surrounding the billion dollar gun registry. The Auditor General warned us that facts were being hidden from Parliament; that Parliament was in fact being kept in the dark. We now have before us estimates calling for a new appropriation of $10 million and the Solicitor General telling the House it is not new. If that is the case, this should be listed as a transfer item.

I invite the Chair to examine the record and the schedule with an eye to the impropriety of the new appropriation as opposed to a transfer item.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote from Marleau and Montpetit at page 732 under “Supplementary Estimates”. It states:

Should the amounts voted under the Main Estimates prove insufficient, or should new funding or a reallocation of funds between Votes or programs be required during a fiscal year, the government may ask Parliament to approve additional expenditures set out in Supplementary Estimates.

“Approve additional expenditures”, Mr. Speaker, and we have heard numerous references to the word “new”. Last week the government proposed a new definition of the word “marriage” and I think we may be trying to find another definition of the word “new” if this is not new money that is going to be allocated by Parliament.

The Auditor General pointed out last year that with the gun registry this government has obfuscated in every way it can by using the supplementary estimates rather than the main estimates to fund the gun registry. Now we find that it is disallowing its own words in the supplementary estimates.

Mr. Speaker, you have to stand up and defend this House and rule that the minister has--

[The Speaker]

I appreciate the advice of the hon. member.

It is getting a little repetitious, I think, on the issue before the House. The government House leader in his submission has indicated that he was prepared to examine this matter further and get back to the House with more detail should the Speaker consider it necessary. The Speaker does consider it necessary in the circumstances.

I would appreciate hearing further from the government House leader to clarify what I can only regard as confusing words in the supplementary estimates, which have given rise to some confusion in the House. I look forward to hearing from him further at which time the Chair will give a ruling on this matter.

I have notice of another question of privilege from the hon. member for St. John's West.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I gave you the required notice of a question of privilege arising out of answers given in question period last Thursday and Friday. This relates to answers given by the government over the Royal LePage scandal.

We assume that the government speaks to the House with one voice, one set of facts and its version of the truth, but the House has been left with two versions. It is time to give the government an opportunity to tell the truth to the House.

On Thursday the following exchange took place between my leader and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough asked:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works must know that a senior procurement officer in his department invited a Royal LePage vice-president on a Caribbean cruise.

Will the minister also confirm that the RCMP is investigating allegations that public works employees accepted gifts from that same company that won a $1.4 billion contract?

Will the minister finally assure Canadians that his department's cruise for contracts procedure practice has ended?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services answered as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, but I am certain he knows from the many years he has sat in the House that we do not comment on RCMP investigations.

On Friday, the following day, the following exchange occurred in relation to government contracts. I will quote directly from Hansard the question I asked, which was answered by the same parliamentary secretary. My question:

Mr. Speaker, government officials have confirmed the public works department's fraud investigations unit was involved in probing the circumstances surrounding the Liberals' cruise for contracts policy and the $1.4 billion relocation contract for Royal LePage. The Solicitor General has admitted the RCMP has been called in to investigate.

Will he now table the internal audit which led to the investigation and can he tell us if there are other departments involved in this $1.4 billion scandal?

The same parliamentary secretary who had answered the question the day before answered again. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services answered:

Mr. Speaker, we are not aware of any RCMP investigation in this file. Issues were raised and the minister and the department have retendered the contract.

My second question to her was:

Mr. Speaker, this investigation goes beyond what government is willing to admit.

Will the minister confirm that eight other members of the evaluation committee, representatives from the Department of National Defence, Treasury Board and the RCMP, attended various Royal LePage sponsored golf tournaments at no cost to themselves?

Has the RCMP investigation branched out to include other government departments?

Will public works re-evaluate the way contracts are tendered to ensure this practice is discontinued?

The parliamentary secretary answered:

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, we are not aware of any RCMP investigation into this particular contract. Issues were raised to the minister and he felt it was better to turn around and retender this contract.

Any reasonable person would assume that the House was told on Thursday that there was an RCMP investigation and on Friday we were told that there has not been an RCMP investigation.

I now turn to your ruling on February 1, 2002, Mr. Speaker. In that case the Minister of National Defence had left the House with two different versions of the facts and he failed to inform the House of his error in giving two versions of the facts to the House. In ruling that this constituted a prima facie contempt, the Speaker stated:

The hon. member for Portage--Lisgar alleged that the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days and alluded to a number of statements made to the media by the minister. Other hon. members rose to support those arguments citing various parliamentary authorities including Beauchesne's 6th edition and Marleau and Montpetit. In this regard, I commend to the House a citation from Erskine May, twenty-second edition, quoted by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough as follows:

“The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt”.

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. Furthermore, in this case, as hon. members have pointed out, integrity of information is of paramount importance since it directly concerns the rules of engagement for Canadian troops involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, a principle that goes to the very heart of Canada's participation in the war against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I was quoting you. The Speaker went on to quote from Marleau and Montpetit as follows:

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...

The Speaker ruled as follows:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members 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.

There is a difference in gravity here but the government is still required to tell the truth and we have been left with two different stories.

Two sitting days have passed since the matter was raised last Friday. The government has not come forward to set the record straight and the House still has two positions coming from the cabinet.

It would be a simple thing for a minister of the crown to rise and set the record straight and offer an apology. I ask the minister to do that. If not, we are left to sit here with two versions of the facts from the same government, from the same parliamentary secretary.

You should find in my favour, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to move that the matter be referred to a committee for consideration and report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my hon. colleague. It is not clear to me that there is any indication of anyone having deliberately misled the House in this case.

I hear that he is seeking a clarification. If that is what he is seeking here, it is not clear to me that that is a question of privilege. If that is what he is seeking, if he wants someone to come to the House and give him a clarification that is one thing, but it is not clear to me that in itself is a question of privilege, and I would ask that it is so ruled.

[The Speaker]

I am quite prepared to deal with the matter. The hon. member for St. John's West sent the Speaker a lengthy letter outlining the fundamentals of his point and particularly the questions that were asked.

It seems to me that he has an answer that on one day if there was a police investigation there would be no comment on it and on the second day they were unaware of any police investigation. I fail to see how these two answers are contradictory or even necessarily inconsistent.

The member answering the question one day said that it was practice not to comment and the second day said that there was not an investigation of which that person was aware. It seems to me that is the end of the matter.

If the hon. member feels these answers are confusing, he knows he has other remedies. He can always ask further questions or raise the matter in committee when the estimates of that department are under consideration, or at other times when the minister is there. However it seems to me that the answers that were given on their face present no question of ambiguity or constitute any effort on the part of anyone to mislead the House.

In the absence of evidence that these answers are inadequate, wrong or deliberately so, the Chair feels, of course, there is nothing that the Chair can do in respect to this matter. Accordingly, I find there is no question of privilege before the House at this time, and I so rule.

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 21 petitions.

Committees of the House

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, February 25, 2003, on Bill C-19, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The committee has considered Bill C-19 and reports the bill with amendments.

Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-451, an act to prevent psychological harassment in the workplace and to amend the Canada Labour Code.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I introduce my first bill in this House.

It defines psychological harassment and abuse of power, requires the public service of Canada to provide its employees with employment free of psychological harassment, and requires every employee of the public service of Canada to disclose behaviour that is contrary to these principles.

The bill also provides for the exercise of recourse, the imposition of fines and the taking of remedial action when an employee who has made a disclosure is subjected to retaliation. In addition, the bill amends the Canada Labour Code to prohibit acts of psychological harassment.

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

Petitions

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have before me in excess of 1,000 names on petitions regarding the matter of the over-expenditure on firearms control.

The petitioners make the aspersions that there are at least a number of areas in which they can verify and support their arguments and that is, that the government has failed to provide any conclusive or verifiable evidence that the registration of long guns is preventing crime or keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

They also claim that the existence of a handgun registry since 1934 has not prevented criminals from obtaining and using illegal handguns to commit crime.

They also claim that eight provinces, three territories, police associations and other area police offices across this country have withdrawn their support of the firearms registry for long guns, and that public opinion all across this country has gone against this issue.

The petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to abolish the national firearms registry for long guns and redirect these tax dollars to programs in support of health care and law enforcement.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, today I would like to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Leader and Eatonia, two great communities in my riding.

The petitioners are concerned about protecting our children, and are calling upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by almost 200 members of my community of Bras d'Or—Cape Breton from the communities of Dominion and Gardiner Mines.

The petitioners call upon the government to defend the current definition of marriage in law in perpetuity.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that brings to the attention of the House the fact that the Government of Canada has announced the closure of nine Environment Canada forecast centres. One of these forecast centres is in Fredericton which will result in lost services within the province of New Brunswick.

On behalf of the petitioners, I call upon Parliament to keep the Environment Canada centres open.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting these petitions signed by thousands of people.

Marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children. Marriage should continue to be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my second petition the petitioners pray that Parliament take all measures necessary to protect the rights of Canadians to freely share their religious and moral beliefs without fear of prosecution.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present of hundreds of petitions signed by thousands of Canadians across southern Ontario, including some of my own constituents.

The petitioners call on the government to take all necessary steps to uphold the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a petition signed by a number of residents of Willowdale and North York.

In light of human rights violations against Hindu and other minorities in Bangladesh, the petitioners call upon the government to review its foreign aid program with that country.

The petitioners also ask that the Government of Canada consult with the government of India to ensure that it continues its past practices of reaching out and offering assistance to refugees from that country.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege to present to the House a petition signed by some 100 constituents from my riding of Crowfoot, more specifically, individuals from the communities of Trochu, Three Hills and Huxley, Alberta.

The petitioners call upon the government to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I take a great deal of pleasure in being able to present this petition and introduce it to the House.

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition by many concerned Canadians.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all the necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia activities involving children are outlawed.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition from about 75 people mainly from the Halifax-Dartmouth area.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to declare that Canada objects to the national defence missile program and to play a leadership role in banning nuclear weapons and missile flight tests.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.