Debates of March 8th, 2005

Aboriginal Affairs

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the hon. member that we have invested $32 million a year in a national crime prevention initiative and $7 million in the family violence initiative.

Status of Women Canada provides $1 million to fight violence against native women. Once again, we are committed to the Sisters in Spirit campaign. We are trying to fulfill this promise as quickly as possible.

International Aid

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while this government dithers, people suffer.

Honest Canadians and NGOs are ready to get on with the reconstruction projects. More than 12 weeks have passed. Not a single matched donation has been paid to the Red Cross or any other Canadian NGO, aside from the initial $3 million promised for tsunami relief.

Canadians know the difference between a lot of hot air and money in the bank. Do the tsunami victims not deserve more than empty promises?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I outlined in some detail what this government and my agency have done in the tsunami affected regions. I do not think it moves the situation forward at all to repeat it.

I would reply to the hon. member that we have set up an excellent structure which at this point is the envy of other countries because we have set up a matching system with NGOs with a great deal of humanitarian relief and a great deal of experience on the ground. In so doing, we are working very well in an organized fashion to address reconstruction with the projects that those NGOs are bringing forward.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if this is a model program, I have great concerns.

The minister stands in the House and brags that the Liberal government has delivered bags of cash for tsunami relief, but the reality is that her sums do not add up. Individual Canadians gave and NGOs are ready to go to work, but CIDA is hoarding the matching donations in its bank account.

If NGOs qualified for matching funds, why is the money not available to them today?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin again. To date $37.3 million has been provided, broken down as follows: $26 million to United Nations agencies such as the United Nations children's agency, the world food program and the World Health Organization; $2.2 million to Canadian NGOs; $700,000 to Oxfam; $600,000 to World Vision; $500,000 to CARE; $400,000 to Save the Children; and $4.5 million to the International Federation of the Red Cross.

Perhaps I could offer a debrief to the gentleman. It might help him.

Status of Women

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women went to New York last week to take part in the international conference on the status of women, 10 years after the signing of the Beijing declaration.

Since today is International's Women's Day, can the minister tell us what the Government of Canada has done to promote gender equality, while the Bloc repeats ad nauseam that the status of women is unimportant?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I led the Canadian delegation at the Beijing +10 meeting at the United Nations, which was attended by a number of my colleagues from both sides of the House. Canada strongly reaffirmed its commitment to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action on gender equality.

We are considered a leader in this area, and we are also proud of various accomplishments, such as having a legal framework to support gender equality and extending the parental leave benefit period.

More women are enrolling in post-secondary institutions. Their rate of participation in paid work is among the highest in the world, while the salary gap is closing and their incomes are rising.

Reproductive Technologies

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just a few hours ago the United Nations General Assembly passed a declaration to ban all forms of human cloning. The margin was 84 to 34, but Canada voted against the ban.

In October the health minister said to the House, “We are committed to opposing all forms of human cloning, and we will take the positions internationally that are consistent with our domestic policies”.

Why has the government gone back on its word?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we read the resolution as it stands. While important elements of the UN declaration are consistent with Canada's domestic legislation on the prohibition of cloning, the government is unable to support it due to its imprecise drafting, unfortunately. I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with this as well. This is the situation. We are loyal to our principles reflected in our own legislation.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are 84 other countries that had a different view which reflected their policy nationally.

Many ministers have repeatedly assured the House that the government would support a full cloning ban. Its own legislation prohibits human cloning, but at the UN it does something different. The only thing that really is consistent with this government is that if a promise is made a promise is broken. Why is this government not keeping its word?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely not the case. We could not support the declaration because of the new provisions that were added to the text and expanded its scope beyond cloning. These new provisions were so vague they were raising concerns that they could affect other areas of reproductive health that are quite important for many Canadian families in this country.

Canadian Commercial Corporation

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Amélia Salehabadi, formerly on the board of directors of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, claims she was the victim of intimidation by board chair Alan Curleigh. She says that her term was not renewed because she had asked too many questions and had opposed a partisan appointment to the corporation.

Since she maintains that she wrote to the Minister of International Trade, could that minister tell us what follow-up he gave her letter and if he intends to verify whether those allegations of intimidation are founded?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked my staff and I never received this letter. However, I must tell the House that we followed the process established by Treasury Board for the selection of new directors. A committee of directors made recommendations to me. This committee requested someone with experience in the CCC's new focus, meaning they needed engineers.

Agriculture

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Middlesex—Kent—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Last week's decision by a judge in Montana has delayed the opening of the U.S. border to Canadian cattle. While the White House has committed to reopening the border, we do not know when that will happen.

Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what action the government is taking to support our Canadian farmers because of this injunction?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we make progress in a number of areas: first, to continue increasing our slaughter capacity; second, to help develop new international markets; third, to manage our older animals and at the same time keep our transition programs such as our set-aside programs in place.

Of course as the hon. member points out, we need to do this while at the same time supporting the other agricultural sectors.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Carolyn Parrish, Independent, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec receives four times the immigrant settlement dollars that Ontario does. The difference of $3,000 per immigrant puts an unfair burden on areas like Peel and shortchanges the immigrants themselves.

The government has had 11 years to address this inequality. Will the Minister of Finance commit to undertake an immediate review of the true settlement requirements of immigrants for every province in Canada?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as the member will no doubt know, the Quebec-Canada accord was signed by the Mulroney government in the wake of the Meech Lake accord and there are a couple of escalator clauses that have led to the current situation.

I think what is most important, as the member will recognize, is the amount of money that we spend strategically in those areas, especially in Ontario, where we have the critical mass of good quality immigrants who are contributing to the growth of the GDP in the country and have become the envy of other places in the country as well.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 24, 2005, by the hon. member for Halifax, who alleged that the House was deliberately misled by certain remarks made by the Prime Minister in responding to a question during question period the previous day.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Halifax for having raised this question, as well as the hon. government House leader for his contribution on the issue.

The hon. member for Halifax alleged that in answering a question during oral question period on Wednesday, February 23, 2005, the right hon. Prime Minister deliberately misled the House by declaring that the government had not yet made a decision on Canada's participation in ballistic missile defence.

In addition, she contended that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in announcing the government's decision to the House during debate on February 24, had confirmed that the government had made its decision prior to the Prime Minister's response during the February 23 question period, noting, in fact, that the decision had already been communicated to the United States Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

The hon. member for Halifax went on to request that the Prime Minister be asked to rise in the House to correct the record as to when the government took the decision not to participate in ballistic missile defence and when this decision was communicated to the United States Secretary of State.

The hon. government House leader rose on February 25 to speak to the point of order. He argued that in our parliamentary system no decision can be said to have been made until cabinet has agreed to it. According to him, the decision that Canada would not participate in ballistic missile defence was made at the cabinet meeting held on the morning of February 24 and the decision was announced to the House by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs when he spoke during the budget debate shortly before 12 noon on that day.

As for notifying Dr. Rice, the hon. House leader explained that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had spoken to his counterpart as a courtesy, knowing, as he did, the conclusion that the Prime Minister and he had reached and were to recommend to cabinet.

I have consulted the Debates for the days in question and find no evidence, either in the remarks of the Minister of Foreign Affairs or in the questions and comments period that followed, that a decision was reached prior to the cabinet meeting of February 24. Indeed, I find nothing that would contradict the description of the course of events set out by the hon. government House leader.

No doubt, members speaking on behalf of the opposition parties would have preferred that the minister's announcement be made during the time provided for ministers' statements so they might have been permitted an opportunity to respond. However, in the circumstances, I am unable to find that there has been an attempt to mislead the House.

I hope that the statement by the hon. House leader has provided the clarification that the hon. member from Halifax sought when she raised her point of order.

I have noticed that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has some submissions to make on a question of privilege raised previously in the House. I will be pleased to hear him on that point now.

Privilege

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to Bills C-31 and C-32, the foreign affairs and international trade bills, and the suggestion by the opposition that the government is somehow in contempt of Parliament.

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to those made by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on February 17. I would like to provide this additional information for you, Mr. Speaker, and for the benefit of other members of the House.

There has been, in our view, no contempt of Parliament. Far from being in contempt of our democratic institutions, the Prime Minister's authority to organize the government is central to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy.

Parliament is at the heart of this system. When organizing the ministry and shaping the structures and machineries of government, the government works within a framework that has been established by Parliament through duly enacted statutes. The government does not create new authorities or powers. Structures are reorganized using existing authorities already legislated by Parliament.

The flexibility of our system has many benefits. It enables the government to respond to new organizational requirements and urgent issues in a timely and effective manner, for example, with the creation of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to respond to emerging concerns in a changed security environment. It enables the government to quickly adapt the mechanisms by which it delivers services to Canadians.

The system I have just described does not in any way operate in contempt of Parliament. On the contrary, its merits have been recognized by successive governments on both sides of the House and by successive Parliaments since Confederation.

Parliament has given successive governments the legislative tools to manage this responsibility quickly, efficiently and with a minimum of disruption. It was for this reason that Parliament passed the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. That act facilitates the transfer of organizations within the government as well as the transfer of responsibilities for acts or parts of acts from one minister to another.

I want to return briefly to a point which I mentioned earlier. In reorganizing or organizing a cabinet and making use of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, the government does not create new statutory authorities or powers. Rather, the government rearranges pre-existing authorities that have already been created by Parliament and does so in accordance with a legislative mechanism that has also been created by Parliament. Far from contempt, this is a clear case of the government and Parliament recognizing and respecting one another's proper roles.

I would also note that Canadian practice, unlike that of other Westminster democracies, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has generally been to confirm major changes in government organization through legislation. Use of this prerogative power alone is constitutionally and legally valid, but it is much more common in the United Kingdom and Australia than here in Canada.

It is inaccurate to suggest that there has been a contempt of Parliament. Indeed, in our opinion, such a claim shows a lack of understanding of the system and machinery of government.

The Prime Minister's responsibility to organize the machinery of government is essential to establishing the ministry and to determining its mandate. That in turn is fundamental to the role and accountability of the Prime Minister and the government in Canada's Parliament.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a tremendous contradiction by the member who just tried to defend that what the Liberals are doing is contrary to the vote of this Parliament. If in fact what he said is true, then it would have been totally redundant to have brought Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 to the House. If the government could do it without parliamentary approval, then it should not have brought in the bills.

The government did bring in the bills. Parliament debated. We contemplated the issues. It was clearly a decision of Parliament that the process the government was embarking on was ill advised. Parliament, in its collective wisdom among all the members, decided that this was not to be passed because it was not the right decision to make. So Parliament, being asked by the government to make the decision, did make it and now the Liberals are basically thumbing their noses at Parliament. They are saying that notwithstanding what Parliament decided, they are going to do it anyway.

I think what you heard, Mr. Speaker, was a really weak presentation by the government, like a little child caught with his or her hand in the cookie jar, trying to explain why it is that he or she is doing what he or she wants to do anyway.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the dignity and the authority of Parliament by making sure that the vote of this Parliament is upheld by the government of the day.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the very same point, I would have to say it is a rare occasion in which I agree so wholeheartedly with the position expressed by the Conservative caucus. There is a certain sense of relief that I am able to do that on one or two occasions.

I have to say that the response given by the government member simply adds confusion to an already confusing situation. It may well be, Mr. Speaker, and I am not trying to anticipate your ruling, that there may not in the strictest sense be a contempt of Parliament here in the ham-fisted way that the government has handled Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, but it certainly is a case of colossal arrogance and colossal incompetence at the same time.

One has a very difficult time, particularly in a minority government when I think we all share a sense of responsibility to try to make this place work, make Parliament and its committees work, to have a situation where the government has introduced two bills after the fact. Yes, there is legislative authority that allows for the rearranging of transfer of duties prior to there being legislation brought in. Having described the necessity of doing that as an urgent matter, the government then bypassed a spring session of Parliament where the appropriate legislation could have been brought in, and bypassed a fall session of Parliament when the legislation could have been brought in. Then when the government finally brought in the legislation, after it was voted down by Parliament the government decided that it did not really need to do it anyway. I guess the bottom line, although this was not said quite so explicitly, would be that the government's intention is to go ahead and ignore the fact that there is no such legislation.

At the very least this shows no respect for the time of Parliament. Why would we spend time being charged with legislation that the government says it does not need and that if we vote against it the government will do it anyway? Also, in a minority Parliament, surely there is an onus on all of us to try to come to some sensible agreement about what is a priority for us to deal with and at the very least, Liberals should not be wasting our time with this.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that we will get some direction from you in regard to this practice of bringing in legislation, actually two sittings of the House after it could have been brought in if it was any kind of an urgent matter in the first place, and then when it is voted down by a majority of members of the House to have the government say that it is going to do it anyway. If it is not contempt, it certainly is arrogance of the worst kind and extreme incompetence to have wasted the time of Parliament in the manner that the government has.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to pick up on the points made by my colleague from Edmonton—Sherwood Park and by the hon. member for Halifax.

In listening to the belated response from the government, it seems that the Liberal members' being so dismissive of the very comments their own ministers have made shows the absolute arrogance the government is adopting in this particular issue.

I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, before you make your decision, which of course we are all waiting for, that the trade minister himself basically shrugged off the defeat in the House of the bills that would create a new international trade department separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs by saying that two branches of government will continue to operate independently without Parliament's blessing.

If indeed, as the parliamentary secretary tries to say, this is simply a case of the opposition misunderstanding how the machinery of government works, and I would certainly debate him on that, then why was the minister himself suggesting that he needed the blessing of Parliament? As the member for Halifax and the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park just said, why did the House go through the charade of having to debate two pieces of legislation if the government did not need them in the first place?

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his contribution to the presentations on this matter, as well as those of the hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. I will review all their comments and come back to the House with a ruling.

I want to say perhaps by way of assurance to the hon. member for Halifax that if she found the arguments confusing at this stage, all will become clear when the ruling comes from the Chair. I am sure all hon. members will have their doubts assuaged when that happens in due course. We have that to look forward to.

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River has given notice of a question of privilege. I will hear him on his question of privilege now.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while my question of privilege does hinge on a couple of the other points that have been raised, I think it throws new light on this particular issue that I am about to address. My question of privilege will charge the Prime Minister with contempt for discounting a commitment that he made to the House regarding the issue of Canada's participation in ballistic missile defence.

Page 67 of Marleau and Montpetit states that the House can claim the right to punish for certain affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament. I will argue that this is one of those cases.

When the Prime Minister reneged on his obligation from the amendment to the throne speech to allow members an opportunity to consider all public information pertaining to the missile defence agreement and to vote prior to a government decision, he acted in contempt of the House. The promise he made to Parliament was the first weave of the tangled missile defence web. More weaving was evident with respect to statements made outside and inside the House regarding when the decision was made to keep Canada out of the missile defence agreement.

On October 18, 2004, the House unanimously adopted the amendment to the Speech from the Throne. One of the sections of that amendment read:

With respect to an agreement on ballistic missile defence, the assurance that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider all public information pertaining to the agreement and to vote prior to a government decision;

Subsequently, the House adopted the Speech from the Throne as amended.

On February 24, during his speech on the budget, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in the House:

After careful consideration of the issue of missile defence, we have decided that Canada will not participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defence system at this time.

A decision had been announced in the House and there was no opportunity for Parliament to consider all public information pertaining to the agreement and no vote prior to this decision. I believe that this is a clear contempt of Parliament.

As late as February 22, the Minister of National Defence indicated to the House:

We will take a decision on deploying a missile defence shield odnce we have all ha a chance to discuss it with our colleagues in this House. That way all Canadians will understand the nature of our solution.

That statement is from Hansard of February 22.

What happened between February 22 and February 24?

The motion regarding the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne is no ordinary motion, and given the condition upon which it was adopted, I would argue that it adds more weight to this charge of contempt.

The throne speech is like a promissory note to Parliament. This House secured the survival of the government based on the commitments articulated in the amendment to the Speech from the Throne. However it has now become obvious that as soon as the government passed the critical point of its survival, its pledges were forgotten.

On November 21, 2001, the Speaker at that time delivered a ruling in regards to a complaint by the member for Surrey Central where he cited 16 examples where the government failed to comply with requirements concerning the tabling of certain information in Parliament. In all of the 16 cases raised on November 21, a reporting deadline was absent and as a result the Speaker could not find a prima facie question of privilege.

However the Speaker said in his ruling in Hansard :

Were there to be a deadline for tabling included in the legislation, I would not hesitate to find that a prima facie case of contempt does exist and I would invite the hon. member to move the usual motion.

The amendment to the throne speech clearly stated that Parliament would have the opportunity to consider all public information pertaining to the agreement and to vote prior, and I stress prior, to a decision. The amendment contained a conditional deadline that was tied into a decision of the government. The government ignored this time commitment and went ahead and made its decision without providing Parliament with information pertaining to the proposed missile defence agreement as required in the amendment adopted on October 18, 2004.

The Prime Minister forgets that all of the power he exercises outside of this House, including making the decision regarding Canada's participation in missile defence, are small matters compared to the commitments he made to this House because it is only with the confidence of the House that he can exercise power outside of the House. No one can be Prime Minister without confidence and no one can have confidence without integrity. It is not a lot to ask for this House to expect both from its Prime Minister.

A few weeks ago I was on my feet making the same charge against two of the Prime Minister's ministers with respect to the defeat of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. One of those ministers, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is again at the centre of today's question of privilege.

We have noted that you have yet to rule on the Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 question of privilege but, as you will recall, I summarized a list of contemptuous acts the Liberal government had committed that related to the government's dismissive view of the role of Parliament.

In the Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 case, the trade minister shrugged off a defeat of the two bills that would have created a new international trade department separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs saying that the two branches of government would continue to operate independently without Parliament's blessing.

Instead of re-arguing the points I made during the Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you apply them to the argument that I am making today in considering your rulings on both these matters.

If you rule this is indeed a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

I believe the government House leader has something to say on this point now.