Debates of Dec. 1st, 2009

Report of Parliamentary Delegation to Palestine

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order.

First of all, I am very disappointed that the member would raise this point of order because I think it really is a point of censure that he is trying to put forward.

I have always understood that members of Parliament belong to different parliamentary associations. I certainly respect that the member may not agree with what is in the report and he may not agree with the views that we hold. That is perfectly acceptable and we can debate that at any time.

However, I take great exception that he is taking issue with the fact that members of the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Association decided to undertake a trip to the Middle East at our own expense and upon returning to the House decided as members of Parliament to communicate this to our colleagues and to the community.

I believe that that is entirely in order. We have not misused any resources of the House. As I pointed out, we travelled to the Middle East completely on our own at our own expense. We have obviously reported to our own association.

Yes, I did make the statement in the House and I was very proud to make a statement. I very carefully chose the word that our report was presented. It was not tabled because we are not a full parliamentary committee and I understand that distinction.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I have great disappointment that the member would raise this point of order to try to criticize members of Parliament who believe sincerely in what they are doing in the mission they carried out to visit Gaza and the West Bank to bring back their experience to members.

This is something that at last should be considered by members, not shut down and not censored, as I believe the member is intending to do with his point of order today.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, as one who frequently goes on this kind of trip, I always make it very clear that it is not a parliamentary delegation. I do not think there is any question, at least I did not hear any question by my colleague, of the content of what the member spoke about or any inference that he wanted to censor what she was talking about. However, I do believe there may be an issue here, as raised by my colleague, of the representation that she and a Liberal colleague made as being some kind of an official delegation.

We have a very rare privilege as members of Parliament of representing Canada. It is absolutely critical when each one of us does it that it be done in a very precise way. Indeed, if she represented herself as being part of a parliamentary delegation, I would join my colleague in his censure of what she did.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 34(1) states:

Within twenty sitting days of the return to Canada of an officially recognized interparliamentary delegation composed, in any part, of Members of the House, the head of the delegation, or a Member acting on behalf of him or her, shall present a report to the House on the activities of the delegation.

I sit on the Joint Interparliamentary Council that oversees officially recognized delegations and parliamentary associations, of which there are 12. I can say that the Canada-Palestine friendship group is not an officially recognized association.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, as you deliberate on this, I would ask you to also examine from times past, when I was one of the House officers, a case raised by the former member for Winnipeg—Transcona, Mr. Bill Blaikie, when someone in the then Liberal government arbitrarily created a parliamentary association by the stroke of a pen without going through the proper procedure. At that time it was raised in the House of Commons and had to be withdrawn. It was a parliamentary association with China. It was done very inappropriately.

Members of the House rightfully guard the creation of parliamentary associations as something that is done by the House in conjunction with the Board of Internal Economy. Mr. Speaker, to represent it as something else, I think you will find in previous decisions is considered a serious transgression. I would urge you to take that into consideration as you make your ruling.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again because I think the debate is taking a turn, where there is a clear intent by the Conservative members to try to shut down this parliamentary association based on the comments that were just made by the minister.

I believe that all members are aware there are many parliamentary associations, whether or not they meet the official threshold for recognition. Some groups meet the official threshold for recognition by the interparliamentary group. There are many associations that have gone through the process as outlined by the House and, indeed, that is what happened in my parliamentary group. We went through the process in terms of notification. All members are familiar with this process. There is nothing wrong being done.

The point of order is nothing more than an attempt politically through a procedural issue to try to shut down this delegation and the report that was made. I take great exception to that.

I believe all members of the House should be allowed to bring forward their experience. If they have been on a mission or have been part of a delegation, they should be able to bring that experience back to their colleagues in the House, which is exactly what we did.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to where I commenced. Prominently displayed on the cover page of the document is “House of Commons/Chambre des communes”, which implies that the House has approved the report or that it has official status. In fact, it represents only the opinion of three opposition members. I am not sure it even represents the views of all of the parties; that is not clear. It certainly does not indicate the source of the document, other than “parliamentary delegation”. I would ask the Speaker to rule on those points.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. member for raising the matter. I will look into it. I have a copy of the report. It has not been tabled in the House--I stress that--but I have a copy of it.

I have a copy of the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East that the member complained of when the report was referred to.

I have heard the submissions of various hon. members on that, including that of the Minister of Indian Affairs, who reminded me of past transgressions in this connection. I will look into past transgressions and see if they have any application to the case before us, and if necessary, I will come back to the House with a ruling on the matter in due course.

The hon. member for Mount Royal is rising on another point of order.

Statement Relating to Subject Matter of Prima Facie Breach of Privilege

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to a statement made by the member for Portage—Lisgar, which in turn related to your ruling on finding a prima facie breach of privilege with respect to the misleading flyer that had been sent to my constituency and others, and which statement made in question period warrants a correction for the parliamentary record and the facts.

The member for Portage—Lisgar said that the Liberal Party and the member for Mount Royal misled this House in stating that the Israeli government had asked the Canadian government to stay in Durban. The member for Portage--Lisgar went on to quote Alan Baker, whom she claimed headed the Israeli delegation in Durban, and that he had asked the Canadian government to leave.

For the record, the facts are as follows:

First, Mr. Baker did not head the Israeli delegation at Durban. The person who headed the delegation was Rabbi Michael Melchior, then a deputy foreign minister of Israel, who publicly commended the Canadian government for staying in Durban to combat the anti-Semitism there. That is a matter of public record and that can be verified.

Second, the member for Vancouver Centre, who headed the Canadian delegation, has said that she was never contacted by Mr. Baker and never was asked to leave Durban.

Third, the final thing and the important point here is that the Canadian delegation at Durban, of which I was a member, made its own independent decision to stay and not to leave for the following reasons.

We did not willingly participate, as the member for Portage—Lisgar implied today, in the anti-Semitic Durban. We stayed willingly to combat the anti-Semitism in Durban. This was publicly commended by the Israeli government.

I also want to add again for the record, as I stated in my submissions, because it keeps getting misrepresented, we were not only asked by the Israeli government to remain, but we were asked by other governments and NGOs to remain, including Canadian NGOs at Durban.

Therefore, I would ask the member for Portage—Lisgar to publicly apologize to the House--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. I hear a dispute as to facts has come before the House once more. It may be a continuation of a dispute as to facts but it is not something that the Chair can rule on. The matter is now before committee. The facts can all be exposed in the committee in full. I am sure the hon. member for Mount Royal will want to do that there, but I do not think he has a point of order because it has nothing to do with procedure.

Members may make statements that are incorrect. It is not for the Chair to decide that the statements are incorrect or not. That is not the Chair's responsibility. There are arguments that arise in this House about what is true and what is not, and it is not for the Chair to make a decision on the truth or falsehoods. I am sorry, but that is the end of it as far as the Chair is concerned.

As I said, this matter is before a committee. The committee can report findings and can make a report saying what it feels the truth is. That is up to the committee if it wants to do that, but that is strictly a committee decision. It is not for the Chair to make these decisions on what is true and what is not, so I suggest that is a debate and not a point of order.

The hon. member is rising on a question to the Chair. I will hear the hon. member.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once the Speaker has ruled that there is a prima facie breach of privilege and the House votes on a motion deeming that there is in fact a breach of privilege that has taken place and has referred it to the procedure and House affairs committee, for a member to subsequently rise and dispute the facts which were laid before the House and voted on in the House, would that not be a continuation of the breach of privilege?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The privilege that was breached was not the fact that statements were made that were true or untrue. Normally, that does not involve a matter of privilege. The privilege here was that a member's ability to do his or her job was interfered with by sending this material into his or her constituency. In this case, it was the member for Mount Royal's constituency.

The material was not accurate and caused problems for the member in doing his job as a member of Parliament. That was the subject of the question of privilege, not whether a statement was true or not in the House.

Hon. members know that members raising questions of privilege are not normally trying to settle whether a statement is true or not. It is a matter of whether their privileges as members have been breached. It is a different issue. That is the answer to the hon. member's question.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the member repeats the—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member knows that it is not for the Chair to decide on the truth. I have stated this and I have made no such decision in respect to the matter of privilege that the member raised. The matter has been referred to the committee.

Sometimes statements are made in the House that are not accurate, but I have no views on that matter. It is not for the Chair to make rulings in respect of that matter. I do not feel that it is a question of privilege at this point in time. That is the reason for my ruling.

The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence is rising another point.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a similar point, just for clarification. Once the Speaker has made a decision on a prima facie case that addresses the ability of members to conduct their work as parliamentarians, I would think it behooves all members of Parliament to show respect for the Chair's ruling by refraining from making the kinds of statements that lead to such questions of privilege again and again.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is the issue. I think that is something you might want to reflect upon again.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I stress that it was not the statements that the Speaker referred to as breaches of privilege. It was material that was sent out. It is a different kettle of fish.

Members have freedom of speech in the House. They enjoy freedom of speech in the House. We have debates in this place and there are arguments about facts that happen in the House. However, they are not normally questions of privilege or points of order. What we had here was a matter of a mailing to the member's constituency that was found to be a breach of his privileges.

It is not necessarily the truth or falsehood of all the statements in it. It is the collective pile of stuff that was sent that was found to be, in my view, a breach of privilege. However, it is not a matter of individual statements. Members are going to make statements in the House on various subjects, some of which are going to be disagreed with. That does not make them privilege issues.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really am struggling to understand this. You found a prima facie case, but it was up to the House to determine whether or not there was in fact a breach of privilege. The House did find a breach of privilege based on the content of the mailings. It was not just that they were mailed. It was the content of the mailings.

Therefore, if the contents of the mailings are being repeated in the House, could that again constitute a prima facie case of privilege?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I do not think that there are many cases where breaches of privilege have occurred in the House because of one what member says about another hon. member. Members are free to express their views in this place and it is not for the Chair to make rulings on the propriety of their statements unless the language used is unparliamentary.

That is the only time the Chair intervenes. It is not a matter of engaging in discussions about debate in the House if the Chair is involved. That is my view of the matter. I will look at practice, but I do not believe it is normal for the Chair to say that one member's statement is an abuse of some other member's privileges. We all enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech in the House and can make those statements.

What was in the package is one thing because it was sent into the member's constituency. What is said in the House, in my view, is another matter and it is not normally the subject of questions of privilege.

I think that most hon. members who have sat here for any number of years will notice that there are not questions of privilege normally arising out of what an hon. member says is a disagreement as to facts. Disagreement may occur and there may be an apology because of the disagreement, but that is up to the members who are involved in that dispute.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is rising on a point of order.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point in support of your explanation. Members opposite and all members of the House know that a Speaker's ruling cannot be challenged. It cannot be debated. Yet, that is exactly what members opposite are attempting to do. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all members of the House to respect your original ruling on this matter and let the matter be closed.

Bill C-470

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader raised a point of order asking that Bill C-470 be ruled out of order.

Bill C-470 addresses exorbitant salaries at charities that abuse the generosity of millions of Canadian donors. At present, the revocation of a charity that violates requirements of the Income Tax Act is at the discretion of the minister.

Bill C-470 does not reduce that ministerial discretion. It simply adds to the existing grounds available to the minister. That being the case, the minister would act in the same way as before, and there is no certainty of a change in tax exempt status regardless of the behaviour of a particular charity.

The bill provides an effective date of 2011, which adds to the context and the purpose of the bill which clearly is not to increase taxation or government revenues.

Mr. Speaker, let me draw to your attention to one key word in subsection 149.1 of the Income Tax Act. That word is “may”. It says:

The Minister may, in the manner described in section 168, revoke the registration of a charitable organization for any reason described in subsection 168(1) or where the organization

(a) carries on a business that is not a related business of that charity; or

(b) fails to expend in any taxation year, on charitable activities carried on by it and by way of gifts made by it to qualified donees, amounts the total of which is at least equal to the organization’s disbursement quota for that year.

If Bill C-470 becomes law:

(c) pays to a single executive or employee annual compensation exceeding $250,000.

So in addition to five requirements in section 168 and two requirements in section 149, Bill C-470 adds one more. But what it does not do is change the word “may” to “shall”. So it remains in the discretion of the minister as to whether to allow funds to be legally skimmed from charities into private fortunes.

There is no change to the tax rate or tax payable of any charity affected by this bill. It simply provides the minister with expanded grounds under which he may choose to act in the interest of Canadians.

The parliamentary secretary made reference to a case in 2007 where the chair ruled Bill C-418 out of order as it would impose a change in the tax deductibility of remuneration beyond a certain level.

Bill C-470 operates in a materially different way. It expands the requirements that a charity must comply with or be exposed to the discretion of the minister. It cannot be reasonably expected that any charity will choose not to comply and face de-registration, and it cannot be certain that the minister will revoke the status of an organization that fails to comply.

Bill C-470 does not impose a tax or other charge on the taxpayer. It does not require the imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, an extension of the incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already payers, nor an increased or accelerated tax burden on any class of taxpayers.

As such, it does not violate any of the principles set out by Marleau and Montpetit or Beauchesne.

Bill C-470 does impose responsibility on the minister. It is a responsibility to the millions of Canadians who donate billions of dollars to charity every year.

If the provisions of Bill C-470 were in place and they continue to see their donations going toward million-dollar payments to CEOs, money intended for the sick or starving going into luxury lifestyles, they would know that the minister had the power to stop it and chose not to.

Bill C-470 would give charities a powerful incentive to maintain the trust of their donors and would give the minister the responsibility, capacity and discretion to respond to breaches of that trust.

If the government does not want greater capacity to protect millions of Canadians who donate to charity, it can choose to vote against this bill. However, the facts remain clear. There is no certainty, or even likelihood, of any change to taxation that would require a ways and means motion.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think that we should be taking a look at, bearing in mind that of course we are governed by the documents that are currently on the Table, is the issue of the additional expenditures that would be required by a given department from time to time, as a result of private members' legislation.

Let me give an example. We presently have Bill C-300 before us at committee. If we were to take a look at the documents on the Table of this House, there may be some question as to whether that bill, should it succeed to come back to the chamber, would require a royal recommendation. Perhaps within the documents on the Table, there are a number of questions about that.

There is no question, however, with respect to that bill, and perhaps with respect to my Liberal friend's bill, that there will be either a complete reordering of finances within a given department in order to take care of the requirements of being able to enact a piece of legislation that again is not specifically covered by the documents with which we govern ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you are a very knowledgeable traditionalist, in terms of taking a look at what has gone before and what the rules of the House are. I invite you to take a look at the additional aspect with respect to a royal recommendation where, for example, if I may use the example of Bill C-300, we received testimony just this morning from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, that in order for that bill to be enacted, it would require many millions of dollars of expenditure by the department.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, that is not covered by the specific rules that you have on the Table in front of you, and perhaps the advice that you would normally receive by the Table.

However, the fact of the matter, nonetheless, is that there will be a further expenditure, either that or a starving of current programs that are run by DFAIT or run by my minister, the Minister of International Cooperation.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you are looking at this intervention by my Liberal friend, I do invite you to take a look at it in the broader picture. Because there are other private members' bills that are going to be coming back to this chamber, which may or may not be successful. However, in the event that they are successful, you are going to be challenged with the fact that, in spite of the specific wording within the given bill that comes back, nonetheless, the government's hands will be tied and the President of the Treasury Board and the government will have to make other financial considerations other than what is currently contained on the Table.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the point of order just raised by my colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville regarding the point of order brought forward earlier today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons with respect to the bill being withdrawn.

In my opinion Bill C-470 does not require a ways and means motion as the bill simply broadens ministerial discretion. I firmly believe that the bill should move forward through the necessary steps in order to ensure that there be a thorough discussion on the issue in the House of Commons.

I think that we have seen, over the years, how the amounts of money being siphoned off in some of these organizations certainly do need to be addressed and I think that this is the proper venue to do that. So, again, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your consideration on this issue.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the representations by my colleague opposite in protest of my colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville. I just find them to be, to use very common language, mind-boggling. When a bill says that the minister may act in a particular fashion and essentially calls upon the minister to become aware of some of the abuses that are taking place in this particular sector and if the government's response is no, it does not want to hear about it and that we should rule this out of order, putting all of the onus on the Speaker's chair, it would seem to me a great dereliction of duty.

As the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville said, if the government does not like to take responsibility, if it refuses to take a look at the abuses that are prevailing and refuses to address the issues that are raised by members of the opposition, it has a very easy tool to implement that refusal, and that is to vote against the bill. However, the tool is definitely not to ask the Chair to rule everything that members of Parliament in the opposition benches bring forward as private members' bills. I think that is disrespectful of Parliament and certainly is an abuse of the procedural tools that we enjoy here.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because the argument has already been put forward. I do not understand how it could possibly be a ways and means motion in circumstances where what is attempted is simply the limiting of income that can be paid to such an executive, period. I do not even understand the logic of this proposal the government has made and I implore you to act on that.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I will take the matter under advisement. I have not had a chance to examine the arguments raised this morning by the parliamentary secretary.

I thank the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for her submissions on this matter and the other hon. members who participated.

I will have a look at the bill, at the arguments and come back to the House in due course with a ruling in respect to this matter.

The hon. Minister of Public Safety is rising on a point of order.

Information Related to the Study of Bill C-36

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to a point of privilege that was raised by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh related to information that he sought at parliamentary committee from the head of the Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. Don Head. This information was to be conveyed by Mr. Head on a timely basis for consideration before the matter was dealt with in Parliament. It was provided to my office. It was conveyed to the hon. member and to others. However, that was not done on the timely basis it should have been done. There is in fact no good reason why it was not done on a timely basis, and for that reason I come before you to apologize unreservedly to the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and to the House for the failure to provide those documents. While he did have them early enough, they were not conveyed in the proper fashion and it should have been done properly and I apologize for that.