Debates of Dec. 14th, 2010

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Jackson Lafferty, Minister of Justice and Minister of Education, Culture and Employment for the Northwest Territories.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Business of the House

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I think you would find agreement for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 later today, no quorum call, request for unanimous consent or dilatory motion be received by the Chair.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

Member's Participation at Conference

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which may be a question of privilege. Twice now the government has referred erroneously to me and my conduct as a member of Parliament at an international conference. The minister who was one of those people referencing knows full well that in fact I attended six days of the conference, longer than the minister, longer than any representative of the government, and in fact that I returned only to be at a meeting in my riding on the same subject one day before the conclusion of the conference.

This is a compromise of my position as a member of Parliament to have the government misrepresent in an authoritative fashion what are actually the facts.

I rely on you, Mr. Speaker, to pursue the government to have that record corrected and to not have it repeated in future.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it was about two months ago in Nagoya the member did not participate actively.

In the biodiversity conference in Cancun, he was not actively participating as we heard that the other opposition members were.

Wasting the taxpayer's dollars is very serious. Would he repay the Canadian taxpayer for not participating?

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Nagoya I attended over 22 meetings, including an hour and a half with the president of the World Bank.

In Cancun and Mexico City I had 37 different meetings. I challenge any of the members opposite to publish their schedules and show us what they did.

The point I want to return to is, as a member of Parliament on official Canadian business, I am being misrepresented by the government, which knows better and knows otherwise, in a manner which is deleterious to the privileges of every member of the House. It is using its position in government to smear or deconstruct the respect which should be due to each hon. member of the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Once again, I am sure hon. members know the Chair repeatedly says that it is not the business of the Speaker to get involved in disputes as to facts. I will look at the matter, but it sounds a lot like a dispute as to facts.

I urge hon. members to refrain from suggestions about the conduct, or appearances or whatever of others because I do not think it helps and obviously misrepresentations can occur.

Comments of the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie

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

Mr. Speaker, this point of order comes from yesterday's question period. I am sorry, I should have raised it yesterday at my first opportunity, but I have had an opportunity to examine Hansard from yesterday's question period.

I note that unfortunately the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie on two occasions, Mr. Speaker, accused the Minister of National Defence of deliberately misleading the House.

I would merely ask the hon. member for Westmount--Ville Marie to retract his statements and to apologize for his comments.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I will look again into the record and see if such a statement is necessary.

Statements by Members—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 30, 2010 by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River concerning a statement pursuant to Standing Order 31 made by the member for Brant with regard to the member for Ajax—Pickering.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, as well as the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for his intervention.

The member for Scarborough—Rouge River claimed that the member for Brant had delivered what could only be regarded as a “negative attack” on the member for Ajax—Pickering, and argued that it was in disregard of previous rulings and the rules of the House.

In reviewing this matter it was immediately apparent to the Chair that the statement complained of related directly to committee proceedings. In a very similar case in which the conduct of a member in committee was called into question, I reminded the House in a ruling on June 14, 2010 that it is incumbent upon committees themselves to deal with issues that arise from their proceedings.

With regard to the content of the statement itself, I would like to draw the attention of the House to page 618 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, where we are clearly reminded that:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 614, goes even further in stating that:

Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member.

This is why in my ruling from June 14, 2010, at page 3779 of the Debates, I stressed that:

When speaking in the House, Members must remain ever cognizant of these fundamental rules. They exist to safeguard the reputation and dignity not only of the House itself but also that of all its Members.

Furthermore, on page 3778, I noted, as have other Speakers:

...that the privilege of freedom of speech that members enjoy confers responsibilities on those who are protected by it, and members must use great care in exercising their right to speak freely in the House.

At that time I also expressed the Chair’s concern with the “continuing and unsettling trend toward using members’ statements as a vehicle to criticize other members”.

As the Chair has indicated in the past, personal attacks in Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31 are of particular concern in that the members targeted are left without an opportunity to respond to or deal directly with the accusations that are made.

For all of these reasons, after careful review of the Statement of the member for Brant, the Chair finds that it constituted a personal attack on the member for Ajax—Pickering and that it was an inappropriate use of a statement made pursuant to Standing Order 31. Therefore, I call upon the member for Brant to withdraw his comments.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the comments are withdrawn.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher has a question of privilege. He will give his opinion on the matter raised yesterday.

Statements by the minister and the parliamentary secretary regarding KAIROS

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood regarding certain comments made recently by the Minister of International Cooperation and her parliamentary secretary, comments that misled the House. I have no intention of repeating the demonstration given by my hon. Liberal colleague yesterday on the sequence of statements. I fully agree with what he said.

I will simply summarize the facts. For eight months, the Minister of International Cooperation and her parliamentary secretary led the House to believe that KAIROS did not receive funding because it did not meet the criteria, and they attributed this decision to government officials, including those from the Canadian International Development Agency or CIDA.

However, when the president of CIDA appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development last week, in response to a question I asked, she clearly indicated that CIDA had recommended that the minister grant KAIROS the funding.

As my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood pointed out yesterday, from the statements made in committee and the documentation tabled there, it is clear that CIDA had, on the contrary, recommended that the minister grant the funding to KAIROS, quite the opposite of what the minister and her parliamentary secretary had said.

The minister must have been aware that the denial resulted from a political decision, contrary to what she said in the House. I, too, believe that this is a case of contempt for Parliament. Contempt is not clearly defined. O'Brien-Bosc, on page 82, says this:

There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties....

Deliberately misleading the House is a case of contempt for Parliament. In fact, on page 132 of Erskine May, 23rd edition, it says:

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

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling from February 1, 2002, on a question of privilege in which it was alleged that the Minister of National Defence misled the House, you said the following:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.

In its report concerning this question of privilege, which was presented to the House on March 22, 2002, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs made the following statement:

Incorrect statements in the House of Commons cannot be condoned. It is essential that Members have accurate and timely information, and that the integrity of the information provided by the Government to the House is ensured.

In light of these facts, which clearly establish that the minister deliberately misled the House, and given the precedents that I just cited, I believe that the question of privilege submitted by my colleague is a prima facie case. Consequently, he should be allowed to move his motion.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Toronto Centre is rising on the same point.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

I have noticed that two days have now passed. The Minister responsible for CIDA, the Minister of International Cooperation, has chosen not to participate in the discussion. She is directly involved in this issue in ways that I think require the minister to respond.

Let me be very clear for the benefit of members of the House as to why the minister should respond. I think my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood has made very clear in his statement, and it has been backed up today by my colleague in the Bloc Québécois, what constitutes a question of privilege and why this is an issue that the House has to deal with.

There are really two questions. The first one is the issue of how the government chose to explain the decision on KAIROS. The government chose to explain the decision on KAIROS by saying that the government and CIDA looked very carefully at the KAIROS application and CIDA decided that in fact the KAIROS application did not meet the priorities of the government. This statement was made not only by the parliamentary secretary at the time, but also by the minister. That is the first foundation of the point of privilege.

The reason that is a point of privilege is because it is a direct contradiction of the facts and therefore represents a contempt of the House. It represents a contempt of the House because the distinct impression is left with the listener that the decision not to fund KAIROS was a decision made by CIDA, when it is crystal clear from the record, as my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood has stated, and in fact the president of CIDA is on the record and stated again very emphatically at the committee last week, that the agency had recommended that the grant be given.

That point would be bad enough, and that in itself would constitute a question of privilege because the minister is in fact mischaracterizing how this decision was made and on what basis. There can be little doubt that this decision was a political one. We are not clear who made the political decision, and I will come back to that point in a moment, but it is very, very clear that it was a political decision that was made, over and above and against the very clear recommendation not only of the president of the agency, but of the entire agency, whose file can be carefully examined by the committee when the committee has an opportunity to consider the question of privilege.

That is only the first point and the first aspect.

The second aspect is a point that has to be clearly understood. Both the president of CIDA and the minister testified that their signatures are contained in the document, which was the recommendation from the agency that the grant application of over $7 million over four years for KAIROS be approved. The president of the agency testified that when she signed the document, the date upon which she signed the document, the document contained a recommendation that the application be granted and that the $7 million be allocated to the KAIROS organization.

When we look at the record, at the document that was signed by the president of the agency, the document also contains the signature of the vice-president, Mr. Singh, and those signatures are dated September 25, 2009. Just below those two signatures is another signature, and that is the signature of the minister, dated November 17, 2009.

The reason this is important, that it is not a trivial matter at all, is that the document was altered after it was signed. It was certainly altered after it was signed by Margaret Biggs and by Mr. Singh. Of that there is no doubt because that is exactly the testimony that has been given by Margaret Biggs.

Margaret Biggs testified that at the time she signed the document, the document said, “Recommendation: that you sign below to indicate your approval of a contribution of $7,098,758 over four years for the above program”. The problem is that the word “not” is now contained in the copy of the document which is available to us, so that the document reads “that you sign below to indicate you not approve a contribution of $7,098,758”.

This document was altered after it was signed. There is no indication anywhere that anyone approved of the alteration. There is no indication as to whether or not the minister approved the document and then somebody put in “not” at the political level or in the Prime Minister's Office or somewhere else, or whether the minister herself put in “not”. But the minister has denied that she put in “not”. If the minister did not put in “not”, which completely changes the meaning of the document, then who did? How is it that the document came to be altered in this particular way?

This is not a trivial matter. The parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry and international trade is making light of this question. I do not think the alteration of CIDA's document to change the thrust of a recommendation from the president of CIDA, and to make it look as if the president of CIDA and Mr. Singh in fact recommended that the grant not be given, is a trivial matter.

The evidence is very clear. The government was covering its tracks. The government was trying to make it look as if the agency had in fact agreed not to recommend approval for the grant when the opposite is clearly the case.

I do not think one can just simply turn away from this and say it is a political disagreement. It is not a political disagreement. It is about the rights and privileges of the House to receive accurate information from a minister when she is asked questions, and when she gives answers in the House that the answers she gives be truthful and a clear factual response to a question from a member.

When a minister or a parliamentary secretary says that he or she did not have the approval of the agency, that the agency had recommended and that the minister had reached an alternate decision, that should have been made clear at the time. I think the fact that it was not made clear amounts to a claim of privilege by the House, and that by its conduct the government has shown a degree of contempt for the House that is worthy of attention.

I would hope that you, Mr. Speaker, would allow the member to send this matter to a committee where we can get at the facts and understand how this came to happen and how a document of this nature came to be altered by someone for political purposes.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The document the member for Toronto Centre is referring to, I believe from the sound of it, is before the committee. I do not believe it is a document that is before the House at this time. Is that correct?

[An hon. member]

It is.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The document is before the House?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

It should be part of the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this same point of order. I made an intervention on this issue yesterday where I said that I would ask that you reserve your decision on this matter until the minister responsible had an adequate chance to respond.

Since we have had two further interventions today, given new information from members of the Bloc Québécois and the member for Toronto Centre, I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, reserve your--