Paul Forseth

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to my colleague. What we are hearing is a short term fix, also perhaps a more mid term solution and long term perspective, fulfilling a real need for the agricultural sector. We need to re-emphasize that it is not always just complaining about the shortcomings, but it is providing a positive alternative.

Would the member summarize what those three perspectives really mean and what is the commitment that she is putting forward for the short term and mid term solutions and in the long term perspective?

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is a principle in law called stare decisis and it means what is decided before. Much of what we are talking about is the Canadian character and who we are.

We have to look at what we have decided. I recall that this House was nearly torn apart in the debate over the Bomarc missile and whether the Bomarc missile was going to have a nuclear warhead on it and what was the involvement of Canada. Eventually we decided to have the Bomarc and the government of the day decided to put nuclear heads on those missiles at some point.

We developed the DEW line in the north to defend North America. We entered into Norad. The House will recall that on September 11 it was a Canadian that was in charge of the big button at Cheyenne Mountain.

We are already engaged because we have decided in the past that it is the Canadian character to defend North America and participate. Of course, when there is a new envelope, a new frontier, we must carefully look at that.

However, if we are looking at the Canadian character, we must also look at where we have been, who we are, and what we have previously decided. Is the future question in character with who we are? I think that is the essential question. What is the technical point of the philosophy of the Canadian character? What are we really deciding?

[Government Expenditures, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, talk about closing costs. The problem agency has spent $92.5 million so far this year. The government admits the failure and says it has shut it down.

If that is the case, why is Treasury Board asking Parliament for an additional $9.8 million and still counting? When will the waste ever end?

[Government Expenditures, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Communication Canada is supposed to be gone by March 2004, yet the Treasury Board has approved an additional $9.8 million.

The Prime Minister boastfully claims that he has killed the program. Why has he not killed its budget?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the throne speech was very inadequate.

Some of the things I would have wanted to appear on the positive side are visions. Among these are the freedom of Canadians to pursue their enlightened and ethical self-interests within a competitive economy; the freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent, and the right to own property.

I would want to see a belief that a responsible government should be fiscally prudent and should avoid programs which cannot be discharged reasonably by the individual or others; a belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependants, while recognizing that government must lift and affirm those who require assistance; a belief that the purpose of Canada as a nation state, guided by reflective and prudent leadership, is to create a climate where individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual are provided, and where prosperity is developed by a free and competitive market economy.

I would also want to see a belief that the quality of the environment is a vital part of our heritage and existence to be protected by each generation for the next; a belief that Canada should accept its obligations among the nations of the world and be an international leader for basic freedoms; and a belief that good and responsible government is attentive and accountable to the people it represents and has representatives who conduct themselves in an ethical manner and display integrity, honesty and a concern for the public best interest.

Those are just some of the things I would have wanted to see in the Speech from the Throne.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, implicit in what is in a background or the subtext of the whole Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister is saying “vote for me because I have past experience, but then, by the way, don't associate me with my past 10 years when I was Mr. Chrétien's most influential cabinet minister”. He cannot have it both ways, but that is the subtext of so many of the points that are made in the throne speech. I would like the member to comment on that.

I would also like him to perhaps allude to a number of the things that we positively oppose. We can point out the inadequacies of the throne speech and its generalization of where it is going to go but we do not oppose for opposing's sake. We have a positive agenda, a very positive alternative, a belief in Canadians that we can do better than what I call these lousy Liberals, to have an alliteration there.

I would like the member's comments on two points: the double-mindedness of the Prime Minister's intent about saying “vote for me but then I have to divide myself from myself”; and then the positive things that we propose as a constructive alternative.

[Privilege, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on February 10 the Auditor General tabled her report before the House which has given light to evidence of parliamentary contempt in the 1999-2000 “Report on Plans and Priorities” which was signed by the then minister and deputy minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

This is the first opportunity I have had to bring this matter to the attention of the Speaker, as this evidence was confirmed earlier today by the Auditor General during today's meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts, both in oral evidence and in private conversation.

In chapter three, the report of the Auditor General states the following on page 30, paragraph 3.100:

Not only was Parliament not informed about the real objectives of the Sponsorship Program, it was misinformed about how the program was being managed. The parliamentary process was bypassed to transfer funds to Crown corporations. Funds appropriated by Parliament to the PWGSC were used to fund the operations of the Crown corporations and of the RCMP.

She goes on to say:

PWGSC's 1999-2000 Report on Plans and Priorities, signed by the Minister and the Deputy Minister, contained the following statement about CCSB:

“The CCSB business line will focus on the following strategies and key activities over the planning period...provide core communications procurement and project coordination services to federal departments that are useful, timely and value added while ensuring prudence, probity and transparency throughout the process.”

The Auditor General then says:

More than half of CCSB's spending was on sponsorships. Prudence and probity in the delivery of the program were certainly not ensured.

That was a statement signed by the minister. So it is clear that the Auditor General has found sufficient evidence to conclude in her report that Parliament was misled. To that end, it is my duty as a parliamentarian to bring forward this evidence and seek appropriate justice on the matter, as I feel there is enough documentation to prove the case.

The Prime Minister himself acknowledged on February 10 of this year that the rules were not followed and that Parliament was not clearly advised. He said:

...the hon. member knows that when money is allocated by a cabinet...it is allocated on the basis that certain rules...will be followed. The problem is that those rules were not followed.

A Speaker in 1978 ruled a matter to be a prima facie case of contempt where the RCMP were alleged to have deliberately misled a minister of the crown and the member for Northumberland--Durham resulting in “an attempt to obstruct the House by offering misleading information”.

On page 225 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , he describes contempt as “an offence against the authority or dignity of the House”.

In the 22nd edition of Erskine May on page 63, it describes ministerial responsibility and states:

...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister....

The House has always insisted on accurate and truthful information. That is why the direct misrepresentation of a ministry's plans and priorities must be treated as contempt.

Parliament must never be misled or lied to. Parliamentarians and the public must rely on the goodwill and the honour of ministerial presentations and submissions.

I trust the Speaker will take my comments under advisement and return with a ruling. Should the Speaker find that this is a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Points of Order, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised at the response from the House leader. I would have thought that in these kinds of cases there would have been some advance notice and discussion. I detect some angling for a moving away from the House being able to deal with this issue in a proper manner.

I was very guarded in my comments yesterday by outlining just the last page words in the report itself where it talked about the gravity of the offence.

The House leader is talking in some respects about general deterrence. That is my point: we cannot merely get to a situation where the House says that something is very grave and should not be done, but then fail to act.

I have asked this question. How bad do things have to be before democracy will be defended? In the contents of the report itself it very clearly outlines how Parliament has been offended. Here is the test case for the government and for members of this House as a whole to ensure that democracy itself is defended.

We are coming into Remembrance Week, and I wonder why we have graves of brave Canadians around the world. For what were they fighting? At some point Parliament has to defend its independent role. Parliament is not the government, and in the face of Parliament, the highest court of the land, this House has to defend itself, not only for its own convenience but for future generations. That is why 20 or 30 years from now, when perhaps a similar circumstance is looked at, it will be said, “What was done?”

I bring my comments back to the last page of the committee report to emphasize in the strongest terms that indeed, as has been expressed in the media, I have expressed my opinions that we should push this to the full extent of redress that is available to the House and that has never been lost. We should speak in the 21st century and not rely on 19th century remedies.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I refer to the ninth report tabled earlier this day entitled, “Matters Related to the Review of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner”. I am looking on page 17 at the conclusions, and I must say that I have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that Mr. George Radwanski is indeed in contempt of Parliament, and that is my reasonable conclusion.

I cite the conclusion on that page which states that Mr. George Radwanski should be therefore found in contempt of the House of Commons.

I also highlight conclusion number four of the report which says:

Sanctions applied in response to the conduct described in this report, should it be found to constitute a contempt of Parliament, need to fully reflect the gravity of the offence.

[Westminster Club, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the publication of a history book of the Westminster Club of New Westminster, B.C., which I will file with the Library of Parliament.

This social businessman's club was founded in 1889. The publication of its history reflects the lives and times of its members, and reveals a fascinating point of view of a city's evolution, where men of commerce struggled to build a community in the isolated west that is now part of the metropolitan region known as the lower mainland of Vancouver.

When we examine our Canadian west coast history, it is too often just the political story or the abbreviated newspaper records that remain. The commercial and social history is hard to remember.

This new book tells the story of local business and social life through the records and photos of the prestigious Westminster Club, from the start as a private men's preserve to now having a woman, Karen Baker-MacGroty, as the president. She was determined to tell the story.

I wish to thank Archie and Dale Miller for their research and careful production. The Westminster Club history book will help us presently to learn of the past in order to chart a surer course into the future.