Debates of March 10th, 2004

Industry

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a month ago in Monterrey, the president and I had a very successful meeting. I am looking forward to meeting with the president again. In fact, what is happening is that officials in both countries are working on the agenda. The purpose of the meeting is not simply to get together; it is to basically accomplish good things for both our countries. We intend to do that.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, to go or not to go, that is the Prime Minister's dilemma. It seems the softwood lumber industry and the livestock producers are still not a priority for the government. He is dilly-dallying. Why does the Prime Minister put his shrinking re-election hopes ahead of the viability of our livestock producers and the softwood lumber industry? Why does he do that?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. In fact, at the meeting I had with the president a month ago, the two main topics, apart from certain other ones, were in fact mad cow and softwood lumber. Those are the issues that we are working on now.

The hon. member does not seem to understand that if these meetings are going to be successful, we have to work on it. We cannot just stand up in the House of Commons and make empty speeches like the hon. member.

Sponsorship Program

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

Mr. Speaker, the accounting firm hired by the government to investigate Canada Post's role in the sponsorship scandal is Deloitte & Touche. This is the firm that has been auditing the books at Canada Post since 1995.

Since Deloitte & Touche is investigating itself, when its mandate was to ensure that nothing was wrong in Canada Post's ledgers, should the government not immediately withdraw its mandate and give it to a firm that is not involved?

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member is not alleging that Canada's number one auditing firm, which is investigating and doing the audit at Canada Post as well as an internal management audit at Canada Post, is in any way not going to do its job in a professional manner.

Status of Women

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women.

The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women is holding its 48th session at its New York headquarters from March 1 to 12 of this year. Could the minister tell the House whether or not Canada is participating in these sessions?

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased and honoured to represent Canada and be there with the Canadian delegation to address the 48th session of the Commission on the Status of Women. The session focused on the participation of women in conflict prevention, conflict management and resolution, as well as an emphasis on the role of men and boys as partners in achieving gender equality. This government is committed to gender equality and we work in the interests of and in participation with all Canadians.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns HIV-AIDS funding in Canada.

Last June 19, the then minister of health, now the Deputy Prime Minister, told the Canadian AIDS Society:

The point has been made...all parties...agree that it's important to at least double the funding on an annual basis...all I have to do is convince...the Cabinet...that they should come up with $100 million.

I am not asking a question about an actual figure today. I am asking the Prime Minister a question of principle. Will the Prime Minister confirm that annual funding for HIV-AIDS will be at least doubled?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from the hon. member. We have indeed met the HIV-AIDS groups and it is indeed a priority of our government. A lot of very good work has been done in the last few years through their work. I wish my colleague, the Minister of Finance, were here today to help me answer this question. We will have to wait for the budget. I can tell the House that it is certainly a worthwhile cause and these groups have made an extraordinary contribution to Canadian health and society in the last few years.

Business of the House

[The Speaker]

It is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(14) the motion to be considered tomorrow during the consideration of the business of supply is as follows:

That, as the federal government's 16% contribution to healthcare spending is clearly inadequate, this House urge the government to invest at least half the current year's surplus in health care, over and above the $2 billion already promised, in order to achieve as rapidly as possible the stable 25% federal contribution called for by Quebec and the provinces.

This motion, standing in the name of the hon. member for Joliette, is votable.

Copies of the motion are available at the table.

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for St. John's West.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by citing Marleau and Montpetit, page 697:

The direct control of national finance has been referred to as the “great task of modern parliamentary government”.

At page 728 it states:

The Main Estimates provide a breakdown, by department and agency, of planned government spending for the coming fiscal year.

On February 24, the Journals of the House of Commons record that the President of the Treasury Board delivered to you, Mr. Speaker, a message from the Governor General, which you read to the House as follows:

Her Excellency the Governor General transmits to the House of Commons the Main Estimates of sums required for the public service of Canada in the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2005, and in accordance with section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, recommends these Estimates to the House of Commons.

...(President of the Treasury Board) laid upon the Table,—Document entitled “Main Estimates for the year 2004-2005”. —Sessional Paper No. 8520-373-02.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, were deemed referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:

And I need not read the list.

The transmission of the main estimates to the House of Commons is at the heart of our constitutional system. These are stated to be the government's spending plans for the coming year and they form the core of the government's request for spending authority.

The government stands behind these spending proposals, otherwise it would have not taken them to the Governor General and asked Her Excellency to recommend them to the House in accordance with the Constitution Act. At least, that is what the House of Commons is entitled to believe.

Now we find out that the entire exercise is a sham; that the government does not stand behind these estimates; that the government is misleading the House of Commons; that the government has once again failed in its duty to be transparent with the House.

I quote from a media release dated February 24:

The...President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, tabled today, in the House of Commons, the 2004-2005 Main Estimates.

One of the top priorities of the government is value for money,” said [the President of the Treasury Board]. “More than ever, the Government of Canada is committed to increasing accountability and providing Parliament with the information it needs to oversee the spending of tax dollars.

The main estimates support the government's annual request to Parliament for authority to spend public funds. They also provide information to Parliament about adjustments to projected statutory spending that has been previously authorized by Parliament. In this context, the 2004-2005 main estimates seek a total of $186.1 billion, including $2.8 billion in non-budgetary expenditures related to such things as loans and investments, and $183.3 billion in budgetary spending.

Today's tabling of parts I and II of the main estimates represents the expenditure plan set out in the November 2003 “Economic and Fiscal Update”. In addition, these main estimates reflect estimates for new and restructured organizations resulting from the machinery of government changes announced in December 2003. Over the coming month, Parliament will consider an appropriation bill to authorize interim spending for the 2004-2005 fiscal year based on these main estimates.

In the same news release, dated February 24, 2004, the government wrote:

Due to the extent of the machinery of government changes announced in December 2003, it is the intention of the Government to table a revised set of Main Estimates later during the 2004-2005 fiscal year. This will allow new and restructured organizations sufficient time to finalize resource discussions as well as to develop their plans and priorities in time for Parliament to consider appropriation bills to authorize final spending. At the same time, it will allow the Government to seek additional spending authority for expenditures that were not sufficiently known in time for the Main Estimates and which are normally sought from Parliament through Supplementary Estimates later during the fiscal year.

Essentially what the President of Treasury Board was saying was that what he had originally tendered to the House of Commons was invalid. The government never informed the House that the estimate book was invalid, that it was a dead parrot.

Instead, the government immediately referred the estimates to the committees of the House and wished the committees good luck on what only the government knew would be a mystery tour.

The committees will not be able to examine the estimates and get answers on public expenditures because there is not a minister of the crown or a single public official who can honestly stand behind these false estimates.

These are the Chrétien estimates; the estimates of a dead government, and that is not saying that this one is a very lively one either, by the way. All that the committees have before them is the dead hand of Jean Chrétien. Yet the House of Commons has been told by the Governor General that these are the spending plans of the Government of Canada and, under the doctrine of responsible government, the current administration has staked its life on the passage of these estimates.

What appears to be happening is that the government will use these fictitious estimates as the base amount on which it will seek interim supply and, having secured interim supply, it will then be able to use internal orders to reallocate funds for other purposes; and dare I suggest the gun registry?

Mr. Speaker, the business of supply is at the very core of responsible government. You, yourself, in 1997, devoted months of study to the role of the business of supply in the House of Commons. The House is entitled to take the estimate book at face value.

Let me refer the Chair to pages 1 to 8, the introduction to Part II. It states:

The purpose of these Estimates is to present to Parliament information in support of budgetary and non-budgetary spending authorities that will be sought through Appropriation bill.

Mr. Speaker, their time will come, let me assure you. The minister's media release says that is not true. At the time of the tabling of the estimates there were comments floating around the House that it was unusual for government to have tabled the estimates without prior notice. The reason is now clear. The government has no estimates.

The government has placed before the House of Commons a fraudulent document knowing that it is false. It did this to start the business of supply so that when the clock stops in June it will have full access to the people's money without telling Parliament or the public how it will spend it. The elected representatives of the people of Canada would be voting $183 billion without knowing what it was for and without being able to question or challenge those spending plans.

This is a gross contempt for the people of Canada, an arrogant attempt to undermine democracy and a complete denial of responsible government.

Once again we are seeing the Prime Minister trying to fudge financial questions. He has come before Parliament unprepared to govern. He has no agenda and he refuses--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member seems to have exhausted the procedural part of his argument and we will perhaps hear a response from the President of the Treasury Board on this matter.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, let me try to deal with this in two or three parts.

If I understand the member correctly, the first part of the claim is that in the news release we indicated that we were tabling the main estimates and somehow we had a secret plan to table a second set of estimates. The secret plan was in the backgrounder to the same news release, so there was no attempt to do anything in secret.

Let me just explain to the member that in addition to reading Marleau and Montpetit he might want to read the standing orders of the House of Commons which require the government to put down the main estimates before the end of February. At that time we had not completed, and will not have completed for some time, all the reallocations and reapportionings that occur because of the changes. The legislation to restructure departments has not been passed in the House, et cetera.

We have met our requirement to put the mains down, but because of the work done by the Speaker, in a former life in the House, the former whip of our party and the current chair of the public accounts committee, we wanted to go further in the name of transparency.

Therefore, we said, in addition to tabling the estimates, as we have done all the time and which reflects the current financial position of the House, because we know there will be further division of the assets and the responsibilities between those departments after the House has passed the legislation, that we will come forward and reflect those changes in an additional presentation to the House, in the name of absolute transparency so the members will have absolutely accurate information. This is an enhancement of democratic responsibility, not a reduction.

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

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board stood in the House and told us that these were the government's main estimates. He then went on to authorize a statement outside the House that said the direct opposite of that.

[The Speaker]

We do not need to rehash. We had the whole document read by the hon. member for St. John's West, so I do not want to cover the same ground.

If there is something else in argument that I need to hear on this point, I will hear it, but I am not going to listen to multiple speeches.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on what the President of the Treasury Board just said. In fact, that even compounds the whole violation of our privileges even further. I would like to give one illustration of this.

The Standing Order 81(4) (a) and (b) states that:

not later than May 1, the Leader of the Opposition, in consultation with the leaders of the other Opposition parties, may give notice during the time specified in Standing Order 54 of a motion to refer consideration of the main estimates of no more than two named departments or agencies to committees of the whole, and the said motion shall be deemed adopted and the said estimates shall be deemed withdrawn from the standing committee to which they were referred.

In the reply that the minister just gave you, Mr. Speaker, that makes it impossible for the Leader of the Opposition to make an informed decision on this matter because it poses the same problem for part (b) of the Standing Order. Part (b) reads:

not later than the third sitting day prior to May 31, the Leader of the Opposition may give notice during the time specified in Standing Order 54 of a motion to extend consideration of the main estimates of a named department or agency and the said motion shall be deemed adopted when called on “Motions” on the last sitting day prior to May 31.

In conclusion, at the Senate national finance committee on Tuesday, March 9, the Treasury Board official gave a date of May 27 during her testimony as to when the reports on priorities and plans will be tabled. That would place important information before the House past the time for committees to consider it, past the deadline for the Leader of the Opposition to refer a concern to a committee of the whole and past the deadline for the Leader of the Opposition to extend consideration of an item at committee.

Therefore the action of the government circumvents the entire estimates process and interferes with the right of the Leader of the Opposition, and consequently all other members.

[The Speaker]

I am sure I have heard the arguments advanced.

It seems to me we have had government reorganization before. That appears to be, from what I heard in the remarks by the hon. member for St. John's West in quoting the attachment to the press release that was tabled, or delivered, or however made public by the President of the Treasury Board, that indicated that following government reorganization there would be some changes in the estimates, which is understandable.

I will look into the matter to see if there is some procedural irregularity in what has transpired.

It seems to me that this kind of situation must have, and in fact I am sure has, happened before in our parliamentary experience. We will see how it was handled.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is without precedent.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough suggests it is without precedent. Government reorganizations have happened when departments get shifted around or the responsibilities in various department are moved from one minister to another. This is not uncommon.

We will look into how it was dealt with in previous estimates and when it appeared in the estimates, whether it was done by supplementary estimate, whether it was done by tabling amended estimates, or however it was done. I will get back to the House with a ruling on the question raised by the hon. member for St. John's West in due course.

I am sure that in dealing with this matter the House will deal with it thoroughly and with all propriety.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention to a change in Hansard which I think is material and perhaps ominous.

Yesterday the government House leader replied to a question of privilege that I had raised. He admitted the government had failed in its duty to table certain orders in council under Standing Order 110(1).

I heard him distinctly when he attributed the mistake to “une erreur administrative”. I believe other members listening on translation would have heard the words translated as “administrative error”.

The French edition of yesterday's Hansard contains no reference to the words “une erreur administrative”. In the official record of our debates there is no explanation for the failure of the government to respect the formal instructions of this House. It is the same in English.

The English version of Hansard contains no reference to an administrative error.

Two things concern me about this. First, it appears that someone has intervened with Hansard to change materially the record of what was said in the House. This is not a grammatical change. It was material. It related to the reason the government gave for not following the rules.

In the words that were spoken the failure was attributed to “une erreur administrative”. In the record, which is what will be consulted, no explanation was given.

That leads to the second reason this concerns me. The practices of the House require us to accept the word of other members. When the government House leader said this was “une erreur administrative”, I accepted that explanation. Now that explanation has disappeared. Why did it disappear? Was this another administrative error, or was the language withdrawn deliberately because it was either incomplete or inaccurate? Was there some other reason why the order of Parliament was ignored?

I had asked that the Speaker consider finding the government in contempt in any event because it had broken a clear obligation. The Speaker decided instead to order that the period be extended in which those orders in council can be considered by a committee.

It is hazardous to try to read the mind of Mr. Speaker, but I had quietly assumed that his decision was affected by the minister's deliberate reference to “une erreur administrative”.

Had the government's reason for breaking the rules been simply indifference, or had there been some more base motive, the Speaker might well have come to a different conclusion. Certainly in the future, anyone in search of precedents for governments ignoring an order of the House will find in the written Hansard a ministerial explanation that is materially different and allows a broader interpretation as precedent than what actually occurred.

I would welcome an explanation by the minister and facing that, an investigation by the Speaker. This new government is becoming defined by its administrative errors. I hope that is all this is.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. member has spoken of a manipulation of Hansard , if I understand correctly. That is an allegation I refute clearly and unequivocally.

As for the details of his allegation, I did not hear the beginning. I reserve the right to look at Hansard in detail before I give him an answer.

Whatever the facts, one thing is certain: no one on my side has tried to change anything at all in the text of Hansard . It is an absolutely ridiculous allegation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister may characterize it as a ridiculous allegation. He cannot dismiss these two facts. One, in this House, he said the reason the rules were not followed was “une erreur administrative”. In Hansard , which reports the proceedings of this House, that phrase did not occur. That is a material difference.

Now he can tell us it was achieved by the tooth fairy, or by Groupaction, or by somebody else. The fact is somebody changed the record of Hansard .

[The Speaker]

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre has raised the matter. I am quite prepared to look into the issue to see what was actually said in the House, because we will have, of course, the videotape of that. I will look at the blues and see what transpired that made the change and get back to the House if necessary.

The right hon. member has raised the point and it is only reasonable the Chair look into it. If the hon. government House leader wishes to add something else to clarify the situation, fine. Otherwise, I will simply look into the matter and get back to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am having a quick look at Hansard and I remember very well having said the words that are here and they are very clear. I said, “I regret that the obligation was not fulfilled—”. Those were not my exact words, but now I am quoting:

However, I wish to remind hon. members that all this information was published in the Canada Gazette. I also wish to inform the House that the internal follow-up procedure has been tightened up to avoid a repeat of this situation.

Those are the words I spoke and I do not see where they are going with this or why.

[The Speaker]

I will look into the matter and get back to the House in due course.