Yvan Loubier

[Privilege, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the matter of privilege I raised in the House on December 3 concerning leaked committee documents, in particular the one that occurred on December 2 concerning the report on the pre-budgetary consultations of the Standing Committee on Finance, I must unfortunately again today submit to you another case of contempt for the House.

This morning's Le Droit and Ottawa Citizen gave the key recommendations in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on the future of the Canadian financial services sector. This is the sixth committee report leaked in the past two weeks and, in the case of the Standing Committee on Finance, the second leak in five days.

Once again, I must remind you that this disclosure betrays the spirit and the letter that must guide us in the tabling of committee reports. It is also an affront to democracy, which suffers from the lack of dissenting opinions by the opposition parties, implying unanimity or unconditional support for the government positions reflected by the members of the Liberal majority on committee.

This action shakes the faith of all parliamentarians of all parties who agree to abide by the rules of confidentiality and the parliamentary traditions based on the honour and dignity incumbent on them through their public responsibility and democratic mandate.

Need I remind you that this action diminishes parliamentary privilege, interferes with the work of the Standing Committee on Finance and does not augur well for the future, creating a climate of distrust that is both unproductive and discouraging. There is no doubt that this leak constitutes contempt of the House.

Allow me once again to quote from Maingot's parliamentary procedures, chapter 12, at page 240, on the definition of contempt:

Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his parliamentary duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.

Mr. Speaker, on December 3, at the time of the first leak by the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance, you ruled that there had been contempt, and you asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to submit its recommendations post haste so that there would be no recurrence. I am very grateful for your response and wish you to know that you have our support.

But on December 3 you also said that you did not have the power to curtail this sort of thing immediately because, in the case then before us, no member of parliament could be identified, charged and sanctioned for leaking in-camera proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance.

The case that concerns us today is different. In the article by Éric Beauchesne, on page A-1 of the Ottawa Citizen , two MPs who are members of the Standing Committee on Finance are quoted, the Liberal member for Niagara Falls and the Progressive Conservative member for Kings—Hants.

The article quotes the member for Niagara Falls, who explains the difference between the Liberal caucus report and the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, as follows:

“There is a difference. I cannot tie the hands of business, but as a representative of consumers I think that if banks need to merge there ought to be some conditions”.

For his part, the member for Kings—Hants was critical of the fact that Liberal members could support both their caucus report and contrary proposals in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, and I quote:

“What this basically indicates is, they didn't know what they signed onto on the Liberal task force and then probably don't know what they are signing onto now”.

Moreover, the member for Kings—Hants disclosed the content of the Conservatives' dissenting opinion before that opinion was tabled in the House, along with the committee report.

In so doing, the two members confirmed the content of the leak and commented on the in camera discussions of committee members.

I therefore accuse the Liberal member for Niagara Falls and the Conservative member for Kings—Hants of showing contempt for the House by releasing and discussing the content of the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, before that report was tabled in the House of Commons on Thursday, along with the dissenting opinions.

This contempt is all the more serious and disturbing since these two members, along with the other members of the finance committee, supported a motion which I moved yesterday morning in committee, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, stipulating:

That the members of the Standing Committee on Finance solemnly pledge on their honour not to disclose or discuss the content of the committee report on the future of the financial sector before its tabling in the House, including the dissenting opinions of the opposition, as the case may be.

As Victor Hugo said “There are people who observe the rules of honour the way we observe the stars, from very far”.

Mr. Speaker, I very respectfully submit this to your attention. If you find there is a prima facie case of contempt for the House in these disclosures by the member for Niagara Falls and the member for Kings-Hants, I am prepared to move in the House a motion that would allow the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to investigate the matter.

[Social Union, December 8th, 1998]

They are cry babies.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government has cut employment insurance and health, it wants to lower taxes for the rich, and it is prepared to grant special treatment to sports tycoons.

Given the actions and the direction taken by this government, is it not the one responsible for increased poverty, for the greater number of children living in poverty, in spite of the economic growth of the past five years?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government cut $6.3 billion in transfer payments to the provinces, primarily in the health sector.

Yet, on Friday, in its report on prebudget consultations, the Liberal majority found a way to criticize the provinces by saying, and I quote: “By reducing the health services they provided, the provinces challenged one of Canada's most cherished national symbols”.

Can the Minister of Finance explain how his fellow party members, who belong to a government that cut one third of its transfer payments to the provinces, can have the nerve to say that if the health care system is weakened, it is because of the provinces?

[Professional Sports, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

But this is a government we have been after for months to help the poor and the unemployed—

[Professional Sports, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that really takes the cake. We are talking about sports millionaires, not amateur sport. Once again, she is lying.

For three years now, the government has been telling us it has nothing to offer unemployed workers, nothing to offer those who are ill, nothing to offer hepatitis C victims, nothing in the way of pay equity, nothing for the poor and the middle class. It has nothing for—

[Professional Sports, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are already helping professional sports teams. Corporate boxes and tickets are 50% deductible. Sports facilities can be written off, and so forth. Sports millionaires receive special treatment and then turn around and squeeze hundreds of millions more out of the public, and people are already fed up.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage really think that increasing the tax write-off to 100% for corporate boxes, lowering the taxes sports millionaires pay to American levels, and writing off professional sports facilities in one year, which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues, will fly with Canadian taxpayers?

[Privilege, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the past two years, it has become common, if not systematic, to have reports of the standing committees of the House and the content of in camera discussions leaked to the media by Liberal members, before this information is officially tabled in the House. It was the case, over the past two weeks, with the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs on nuclear non-proliferation, the report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on amateur and professional sports, and the report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access.

Such disclosure betrays the spirit and letter that must guide us in the tabling of reports from the Liberal majority, along with the dissenting opinions of the opposition parties in the House of Commons.

Yesterday evening, the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on prebudget consultations was no exception. It was leaked during the 10 p.m. CBC national news. The Liberal majority disclosed some information contained in the committee report which serves the interests of the federal government and which allowed the Minister of Finance to be in the limelight, to promote his tax reduction initiative and spout propaganda about the federal government's achievements.

This is contempt of the House, which may be punished. According to Maingot, in chapter 12, page 229:

Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his parliamentary duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.

The disclosure of a committee report or of the content of in camera discussions by members of these committees, before the opposition's dissenting opinions are prepared and all the information is tabled in the House of Commons, constitutes contempt of the House and is a serious breach of democracy.

The Liberals' way of doing things is also an unforgivable affront to the privileges of those parliamentarians who respectfully and honourably comply with a rule which, for all intents and purposes, practically no longer exists. This also hinders the work of members, who make themselves available for intensive consultations throughout the country for two months and who see the results of their efforts and those of all the witnesses who took part in the exercise reduced to nought for purely partisan reasons.

This disclosure of the report of the Standing Committee on Finance seriously undermines the credibility of the committee and of its members and creates an unhealthy working atmosphere in which suspicion and disrespect overshadow co-operation, loyalty and one's word of honour. In fact, confidentiality and honour no longer seem to hold much meaning for the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Faced with these troubling incidents, I respectfully ask you to tell the House whether the rule of confidentiality still applies to House of Commons committee reports before they are tabled and whether it is a rule we must observe out of respect for parliamentarism and democracy. That being the case, I ask you to consider the action taken by Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Finance as contempt of the House. And, should you agree that it is, I am prepared to move a motion in the House that would allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to conduct an inquiry.

If, however, it turns out that this rule of confidentiality is no longer a sacred precept of the parliamentary system, we will conduct ourselves accordingly in future. But it would be very unfortunate if that were the case, for the loss of this rule would strike a hard blow to democracy and to the credibility of this institution we all respect as parliamentarians.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement with the suggestion made by the chief government whip.

[Division No. 281, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board replied that these figures reflected those of last year. But do they reflect those of two years ago?