Joe Fontana

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of moving beyond this, I had asked whether or not the member for Lakeland was prepared to confirm that he had apologized to the House.

I just asked him personally while you were standing and asking me to do so. He said that he was not prepared to confirm that he apologized to the House. Therefore I am not moving that my motion be removed.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to formally withdraw my motion. I do that on the basis that there has been consultation among the House leaders and that I heard earlier this afternoon that the member for Lakeland has apologized to the House for breaching the privileges of the House and for releasing the report.

Perhaps you could ask him to confirm that he has apologized to the House. If that is the case, with the unanimous consent of the House I am prepared to move that I remove my motion to refer the issue to the committee.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the committee to comment on the important work that we try to do as a committee.

I have spoken many times to the member for Lakeland and thanked him very much, not only for his questions in committee but for his approach to the subject matter, our refugee determination system, which is of concern to Canadians. We must ensure that the system works well.

The committee was working well together in dealing with this issue, which is important to all Canadians. It is unfortunate that it has come to this procedural wrangling, and it is unfortunate that the member released a report that was still in progress and still being worked on.

The Speaker has already ruled that there was a prima facie case of privilege. At that time I could have moved a motion to censure the member, but I did not. I said that I wanted this issue to move to the procedure and House affairs committee where it could be aired and where the member for Lakeland and other members could talk to the committee. I sat on that committee for two years and had to deal with some of the issues which hon. members have talked about, such as the leaking of confidential reports by all members of the House.

The procedure and House affairs committee found that to be an unacceptable way for members of the House to conduct themselves. At the end of the day, all we are trying to do in this place is the nation's business and the work as well as we possibly can.

The point that seems to be missed here, which the member for Lakeland is trying to confuse, is not whether it was appropriate to go into in camera meetings, but whether there was a motion duly put to the committee as to whether we ought to go in camera. We were discussing options. We were discussing a summary of what the witnesses said. We had yet to move to debate on the confidential document, and for that we all agreed that it should have been, and was, done in public.

The moment we start to draft a confidential report with recommendations, at that point we must all respect the rules of the House. We must respect one another. We cannot sit on every committee. Therefore, it is incumbent upon every member to do the nation's business in committee on behalf of all 301 members of the House, and only release information to the public after it has been reported to the House. That will ensure that members of parliament will get to know and decide before the public as to what should be made public and what should be concurred in.

I must admit that the member for Lakeland was upset so he decided to release the report which was confidential and in fact that is why it was contrary to the rules. Perhaps he was upset because he thought the immigration minister had already written a piece of legislation without the input of the committee.

We tried to point out that was not the case. It was not the case. A minister and the ministry over a period of time have to consult with Canadians, provincial counterparts and a number of people on a number of issues before a bill is put forward.

Because he was so disturbed that perhaps all of the hard work that was done by the committee would be for naught, the member decided it was incumbent upon him to take a confidential report which was only half complete and call a news conference for the purpose of letting the public know what the committee was dealing with in regard to our refugee determination system.

The Speaker earlier today heard all of the evidence put forward by me and the member for Lakeland, and in fact he found there to be a prima facie case of privilege. I might be mistaken but I also heard that the member for Lakeland expressed an apology. I hope that is the case.

Some members are saying those are the rules of the House. We are trying to be helpful here. We are trying to learn from one another. We are trying to ensure that the House is respected, that we can move forward and work together as much as possible in a non-partisan way in doing the nation's business.

If the member has already apologized to the Speaker and to the House, I would suggest that the House would be best served if I withdrew my motion. I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my motion on the basis that the member has already apologized to the House for the breach of privilege.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to perhaps a little debate here. My colleague, in a very objective way, has tried to point out what all members of the committee are feeling regardless of political party, except for the member of the Reform Party, now known as the new Canadian Alliance. Old name, new name; it is the same old stuff.

I do not think he gets the point of what the chair already ruled on. It is unfortunate that he does not appreciate what the chair said. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a meeting was in camera. I look forward to the opportunity of putting that case to the committee.

A standing order of the House protects the integrity and the privilege of every member of the House. The point is that if there is a confidential document it cannot be reported to the public before it is reported here. That is the issue. That is what the Speaker ruled on, that you are in breach of that privilege. It is not whether or not we had a meeting in camera.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you having taken the time to look at this very serious matter. On behalf of myself and the members of the committee, I move:

That the matter of the premature disclosure of the committee report by the member for Lakeland be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Citizenship And Immigration, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, a bona fide copy of the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled “Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance”.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank committee members for their hard work and good work, the witnesses who appeared before the committee who gave us their wisdom and thoughts, and the minister and the officials who also provided us good counsel and advice. The report contains some 46 recommendations.

We want to assure Canadians that not only is our border secure, but we want a fair and equitable refugee determination system, and I believe we have that.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Privilege, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it in your good judgment and perhaps the good judgment of the procedure and House affairs committee to determine which facts are right and which facts are wrong as put forward by myself last Friday.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I gave notice on Thursday, half an hour after the member prematurely released a confidential document. I will not recite the citations. I also stood this morning and indicated with a heavy heart that the committee itself, in its first report, indicated that it felt its privileges were breached because of the premature release of a draft report in confidence that will be made public tomorrow. Everyone's rights have been breached. That is the additional piece of information.

I want to make one clarification because obviously an awful lot of information has been put before you with regard to this matter. It is an embarrassing matter.

First of all I want to say that I respectfully informed the whip of the Reform Party two hours before the member for Lakeland was to make this issue public. He, I might add, was as concerned as I was as to the actions of the member for Lakeland. I point that out to the House.

[Committees Of The House, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

It is with a little sadness that I do so because the report outlines the release of in camera material by the member for Lakeland which the committee believes may constitute a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. If you, Mr. Speaker, find a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to introduce a motion for the entire matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I also want to bring to the attention of the House that on Friday, March 17, I stood in the House on a point of privilege to address the same matter. The first report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is also doing the same thing in asking the Speaker to rule on this very important matter which deals with the privileges of all members of the House with regards to confidential material being released prematurely before the committee and this House has had an opportunity to consider it.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your guidance and your advice on this matter.

[Privilege, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I respect your decision to hear from the member for Lakeland, but I did want to answer three of your questions.

First, it was not a steering committee. It was a full committee of the citizenship and immigration committee that was undertaking the work of preparing its report. My colleague from Wentworth—Burlington has indicated that we had moved certain amendments and wanted to publicize the report on Monday or Tuesday.

Second, yes, there was a confidential draft report that was produced. That was the report that was leaked at the news conference held by the member for Lakeland yesterday at 3.35 p.m. Upon witnessing the news release, which was on CPAC and the internal communication devices of the House of Commons, I immediately tabled the notice with the table officers. Yes, it is a document that was being prepared by the full committee of citizenship and immigration and was released in its unamended form yesterday at 3.30 p.m.

[Privilege, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, and members of the House of Commons, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the premature release of a confidential document that was still work in progress at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

The member for Lakeland, who happens to be the vice-chair of the committee, issued a media advisory, which says:

OTTAWA, Thursday, 16 March 2000: At 3:30 p.m. today in Room 130-S Centre Block, Reform MP Leon Benoit, MP will hold a press conference to make the report of the citizenship and immigration committee public. This report titled, “Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance” is marked confidential and has yet to be tabled in the House of Commons.

I note that in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , chapter 20, at page 884 it says:

Committee reports must be presented to the House before they can be released to the public. The majority of committee reports are discussed and adopted at in camera meetings. Even when a report is adopted in public session, the report itself is considered confidential until it has actually been presented in the House. In addition, where a committee report has been considered and approved during in camera committee meetings, any disclosure of the contents of a report prior to presentation, either by Members or non-Members, may be judged a breach of privilege. Speakers have ruled that questions of privilege concerning leaked reports will not be considered unless a specific charge is made against an individual, organization or group, and that the charge must be levelled not only against those outside the House who have made in camera material public, but must also identify the source of the leak within the House itself.

It is not only a question of privilege for myself but especially for the members of the committee on citizenship and immigration who have worked very hard over the past two or three months, and on Wednesday or Thursday of this week continued to do that work, and, as I said, it was work in progress.

Unfortunately the member for Lakeland and his colleague decided not to participate in those meetings and hence have done this. I think this is an important question of privilege, a privilege that affects each and every member of the House. It is incumbent upon us, because we all cannot sit on each other's committees, that we do work on behalf of each other in these committees.

Therefore, until such time as the document is released to the House, it is rather unfair that the members of the House of Commons do not get to see these reports before they are leaked to the public and, in this case, with intent and purpose as reported by the news media.

I ask that this question of privilege be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so that it can deal with this breach of privilege which I believe demeans the value of the House of Commons and the value of our purpose here. After spending the better part of yesterday talking about this institution and about how important and how respected it is, I think this is absolutely deplorable.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you immediately refer this breach of privilege by the member for Lakeland to the procedure and House affairs committee for a report back to the House to Commons.