House of Commons Hansard #9 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was going.
Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, during question period I was asked a question by the chairman of the public accounts committee, and was so disappointed by his lack of responsibility that I used the word “mislead”.
I really do not believe that the chairman of the public accounts committee would attempt to mislead and I would like to withdraw the word.
Points of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I thank the Prime Minister.
The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby.
Paul Forseth Canadian Alliance New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, on February 10 the Auditor General tabled her report before the House which has given light to evidence of parliamentary contempt in the 1999-2000 “Report on Plans and Priorities” which was signed by the then minister and deputy minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
This is the first opportunity I have had to bring this matter to the attention of the Speaker, as this evidence was confirmed earlier today by the Auditor General during today's meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts, both in oral evidence and in private conversation.
In chapter three, the report of the Auditor General states the following on page 30, paragraph 3.100:
Not only was Parliament not informed about the real objectives of the Sponsorship Program, it was misinformed about how the program was being managed. The parliamentary process was bypassed to transfer funds to Crown corporations. Funds appropriated by Parliament to the PWGSC were used to fund the operations of the Crown corporations and of the RCMP.
She goes on to say:
PWGSC's 1999-2000 Report on Plans and Priorities, signed by the Minister and the Deputy Minister, contained the following statement about CCSB:
“The CCSB business line will focus on the following strategies and key activities over the planning period...provide core communications procurement and project coordination services to federal departments that are useful, timely and value added while ensuring prudence, probity and transparency throughout the process.”
The Auditor General then says:
More than half of CCSB's spending was on sponsorships. Prudence and probity in the delivery of the program were certainly not ensured.
That was a statement signed by the minister. So it is clear that the Auditor General has found sufficient evidence to conclude in her report that Parliament was misled. To that end, it is my duty as a parliamentarian to bring forward this evidence and seek appropriate justice on the matter, as I feel there is enough documentation to prove the case.
The Prime Minister himself acknowledged on February 10 of this year that the rules were not followed and that Parliament was not clearly advised. He said:
...the hon. member knows that when money is allocated by a cabinet...it is allocated on the basis that certain rules...will be followed. The problem is that those rules were not followed.
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”.
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”.
In the 22nd edition of Erskine May on page 63, it 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....
The House has always insisted on accurate and truthful information. That is why the direct misrepresentation of a ministry's plans and priorities must be treated as contempt.
Parliament must never be misled or lied to. Parliamentarians and the public must rely on the goodwill and the honour of ministerial presentations and submissions.
I trust the Speaker will take my comments under advisement and return with a ruling. Should the Speaker find that this is a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I absolutely and categorically reject the allegations that have been made and, with your leave, I reserve the right to give a more complete answer very shortly.
Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL
Mr. Speaker, page 221 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , describes that:
A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee--
What we have here with respect to the sponsorship program is a scandal and a cover-up, a cover-up that no one denies exists.
We also have the Auditor General reporting that misleading information involving the sponsorship program was provided to Parliament.
A cover-up involves deceit. On page 141 of the 19th edition of Erskine May, it is stated:
Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
It is not inconceivable that the people involved in the sponsorship program scandal were deceitful and knowingly provided misleading information to someone in the department who, knowingly or unknowingly, provided that information to Parliament.
It is not important at this phase to conclude that a minister knew or did not know. As with the case of the RCMP precedent, it was sufficient to argue that someone along the line provided misleading information deliberately.
No one can argue that there is sufficient cause to believe that the people involved in this scandal and the cover-up of the scandal would deliberately provide misleading information about their activities.
Under the circumstances, I would argue that the evidence on its face is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to committee.
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that, by unanimous consent on Tuesday of this week, the House restructured the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The Auditor General's report that was alluded to has already been referred to the committee and, this very morning, the Auditor General appeared before the committee.
Perhaps we might take it for granted that the House has already passed this matter on to the committee and that we must give the committee some time to do its work, something the hon. members apparently do not to want to happen.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
The Chair has received the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby and appreciates the comments of the hon. member for St. John's West on the matter.
I also appreciate the comments from the hon. deputy government House leader.
I have listened to the request by the government House leader, who wishes to submit his answers to the Chair soon—probably Monday, or so I hope at least— so that the Chair will have an opportunity to consider the matter raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
Accordingly, I will take the matter under advisement, hear further submissions at a later date and get back to the House in due course.
Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC
Does that mean we will have a debate on it?
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
Whether there will be a debate, as the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River knows full well, depends on whether or not a motion follows.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby is prepared to move his motion if the Chair gives authority for him to do so after considering the matter, which the Chair has undertaken to do, of course with all convenient speed.
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if this would be an appropriate time to ask for unanimous consent. Discussions have taken place between the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, on February 16, 2004, when the question is put on the motion for an Address to Her Excellency, a division thereon shall be deemed to have been requested and shall be deferred to the end of the time for consideration of government orders on February 17, 2004.
Business of the HouseOral Question Period
The Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL
Mr. Speaker, on the weekly statement, I have two questions. The first question is to the hon. government House leader. What is the business for the rest of today, tomorrow and next week, if the government is still in existence?
The second question deals with whether or not we will be having a take note debate on Tuesday night. I gave the hon. member some time to think about this.
Tuesday is an opposition day. Usually an opposition day is a day when the concentration is on an issue brought forth by one of the opposition parties. However, we now see government, without any consultation, as has been the process in the past, bringing in a take note debate which deflects from the actual opposition day itself.
I would ask the hon. House leader if he would rearrange to have a government take note debate or any take note debate at any time other than on opposition days, because I believe there is a major contrast, and it sets a bad precedent.
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I will answer in the reverse order of the questions raised. To my knowledge, there are many precedents in this House of emergency or take note debates being held on opposition days.
Therefore, I gave some thought to the question that was put to me. I am pleased to see that the hon. member opposite is as aware as I am of the fact that we work later in the evening. We will indeed have this take note debate and, after thinking about his proposal, I must unfortunately confirm to him that this take note debate will take place on Tuesday, February 17, as planned.
As for the hon. member's first question, this afternoon, we will continue with the debate on the address. Tomorrow, we will conclude our review of Bill C-2, the Radiocommunication Act, which will be followed by a motion for the referral to a committee, before second reading, of the equalization bill that was tabled this morning.
Monday shall be the final day for the address debate.
Tuesday shall be an allotted day, and of course followed by what we just said, on Tuesday evening we will have a take note debate on the ballistic missile defence issue.
On Wednesday we will consider a motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-3 respecting the Canada Elections Act.
Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, I move:
That a take note debate on the subject of ballistic missile defence take place pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 on Tuesday, February 17, 2004.
Business of the HouseOral Question Period
The Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Business of the HouseOral Question Period
The Speaker
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Business of the HouseOral Question Period
The Speaker
All those opposed will please say nay.
Business of the HouseOral Question Period
The Speaker
In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, that this standing order makes the motion deemed adopted.
Business of the HouseOral Question Period
The Speaker
Standing Order 53.1(1) states:
A Minister of the Crown, following consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, may propose a motion at any time, to be decided without debate or amendment, setting out the subject-matter and designating a day on which a take-note debate shall take place, provided that the motion may not be proposed less than forty-eight hours before the said debate is to begin.
I do not believe it is to be carried automatically. It says it is “to be decided without debate or amendment”. So I have put the question to the House and I therefore propose to call in the members.
Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, at the meeting of the leaders of the parties in the House that we held earlier this week, on Tuesday, we had agreement to announce that we would have this debate on February 17. There was agreement to that effect.
The question raised late yesterday afternoon by the leader of the Conservative Party was whether it was possible or not to change that. I told him I would take that into consideration but I could not promise that it would happen that way. So long as I could not arrange it otherwise the only thing which was holding true was the agreement that we had at our leaders' meeting. I believe that this agreement should hold if everyone is to stick to their word as given.