John Reynolds

[Petitions, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from over 300 people of the wonderful city of Powell River who ask Parliament to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Citizenship Act, December 12th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. My bill is designed to remedy an injustice in the Canadian Citizenship Act, whereby Canadian children whose parents took out United States citizenship between 1946 and 1977 automatically lost their Canadian citizenship through no conscious decision of their own.

Regrettably, amendments to the Citizenship Act of 1977 did not make these the citizenship of these individuals retroactive. My bill would make it possible for these individuals to regain their Canadian citizenship without being established as a permanent resident in order to do so.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the chair of the procedures and House affairs committee advise the House whether that report is in both official languages?

[Privilege, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding a matter that occurred in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. While I recognize that committees are masters of their own proceedings, the procedure and House affairs committee has gone beyond its authority by ignoring an order of this House.

Mr. Speaker, there are two issues that you must consider. My first point is the actual charge of contempt, and my second point is the issue of timing, which is not as straightforward as the prima facie case of contempt. However, I am sure you will find that my arguments are sound for raising this question of privilege now.

On November 6, 2002, the House adopted a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The report dealt with improvements to Private Members' Business, namely, providing for all items to be votable. The report in part read:

After much deliberation, the Committee is proposing new procedures for Private Members' Business...We, therefore, propose that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended in accordance with the following principles and instructions.

Without going into details, the committee outlined these principles and instructions. One of the instructions read:

This new procedure will be adopted on a pilot project (provisional) basis from the Fall of 2002 to the end of the 37th Parliament, provided that it is subject to a review by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs after one year.

Mr. Speaker, the clerk was asked to draft the new Standing Orders and he has complied. The draft rules were submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Liberal majority voted them down and referred the matter to the modernization committee. If the Liberals want to refer the matter to the modernization committee they will have to seek the consent of the House and they have not.

I will get to the timing issue in a moment, Mr. Speaker, but please allow me to finish my first point.

On page 854 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

Committees are bound by their orders of reference and may not undertake studies or make recommendations to the House which go beyond the limits established by them.

Citation 760(2) in Beauchesne's 6th edition states:

Committees receive their authority from the House itself and the authority of the House overrides that of any committee.

Citation 831(2) points out that:

A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the Order of Reference [from the House].

This is exactly what the procedure and House affairs committee did. It departed from an order of reference from the House.

I will now address the issue of timing. The date in the fourth report that was adopted by the House stated “the Fall of 2002”. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, fall ends officially on December 21. As you are also aware the House is scheduled to rise on December 13. Therefore after that point the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would clearly be in contempt of the House.

I would argue that since the committee has not agreed to report its decision to the House, and procedurally it is now impossible for the committee to meet, report and have that report adopted, considering it takes 48 hours notice to move a concurrence motion, it is in contempt as we speak.

The Speaker cannot consider the possibility of unanimous consent because the committee will never get that unanimous consent unless it is over my dead body and that of every member of the official opposition. While I cannot speak for other parties, I would think every other opposition member and many members of the government caucus as well would protest such a move. The committee will never get the consent it desires to scuttle and put off these reforms for which many members fought long and hard. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the only avenue you must consider is the so-called normal channel, which as Speaker you are charged with upholding.

The tale of how this contempt occurred began nine years ago. Procedurally it began with the first report of the modernization committee that reported in June 2001. While it is the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider matters of parliamentary reform, the modernization committee was commissioned to do the job because the procedure and House affairs committee failed to do so for nine years. The committee demonstrated how totally incompetent it can be at times. It could be incredibly partisan at others, insular most of the time, and with respect to improving Private Members' Business, disrespectful to members of Parliament.

If you look at the membership, Mr. Speaker, you will see why it was necessary to strip them of their parliamentary reform duties. The membership consists of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the House leader, the chief government whip and the deputy government whip. It is the finest control group ever assembled, all taking orders from the PMO.

The modernization committee reported and it left one item for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs committee. The one item was improvements to private members' business. The member for Yorkton—Melville, a member who knows the reputation of the House affairs committee, moved a motion expecting the committee to carry out the wishes of the modernization committee. It was adopted on June 12, 2001, and it instructed the committee to report in November of that year. The committee reported back to the House seeking an extension in April.

In December the committee did a curious thing. It reported back to the House four months ahead of deadline, that it found the task too difficult. Notwithstanding, and after some pressure from behind the scenes, the committee took up the challenge again and in the first session presented its report to the House.

It reinstated the report in this session and on November 6 the House adopted the report. Yesterday the committee backtracked and kicked the matter back to the modernization committee from whence the first instruction came. I call that completing the circle of incompetence. We have tolerated enough incompetence, enough disrespect and enough contempt.

On page 225 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it states:

Contempt is more aptly described as an offence against the authority or dignity of the House.

The House has ordered the new procedure for private members' business to commence this fall. Pursuant to our rules, it is procedurally impossible for the standing committee to ask for an extension or to ask to refer the matter to the modernization committee. Therefore, it is in contempt.

To comply with the order of the House you will note, Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper and Notice Paper that I have a motion, Motion No. 326, that would give effect to the House order of November 6. It contains the actual Standing Order changes that the clerk was instructed to draft. I will read only the first paragraph because it is a very long motion.

That, pursuant to the motion adopted by this House on June 12, 2001 instructing the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to draft, and report to this House, changes to the Standing Orders improving procedures for the consideration of Private Members' Business, including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable; and pursuant to the adoption of the 4th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on November 6, 2002, which gave effect to the instruction by the House on June 12, 2001, the Standing Orders be amended by replacing Chapter XI with the following:

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you transfer this motion on private members' business to be considered under the rubric motions so as to allow the House to consider these Standing Orders changes pursuant to its order of November 6. I see no other means for which this House could comply with its own wishes.

In conclusion, I urge the Speaker to find a prima facie question of privilege so the House can charge the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs who voted against the authority of the House with contempt. I am prepared to move that motion, if you find the prima facie case.

[House of Commons, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberals have killed an attempt by a majority of members of the House to reduce the democratic deficit. We do not know which of the two Prime Ministers sitting opposite cracked the whip but we do know that backbenchers over there cringed and tugged their forelocks and obeyed.

It was a simple agreement among all parties that would have made private members' bills votable. It was a small step toward further democracy in this place but the word democracy is a foreign word to the Liberals.

In November the House voted unanimously to adopt the 4th report of the standing committee that called for full votability of all private bills.

What optimism there was after that, Mr. Speaker. Even Liberals were joyful at the prospect of seeing this tiny baby step toward the democratization of the House. At least that is what they conveyed publicly.

Canadians should know, as do all members of the House, it does not matter who leads them, as long as the Liberals are in power Canada will be run as a dictatorship.

[Business of the House, December 9th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move:

That during the remainder of the debate on Government Motion No. 9, any member, after notifying the Speaker, may divide his or her speaking time with up to three other members.

In other words, any member can divide his or her speech into two 10 minute speeches or four 5 minute speeches.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

The GST.

[Privilege, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of National Revenue with contempt for her failure to comply with a legislative requirement compelling her to table a report on cases of theft, fraud and losses of taxpayers' money in the Public Accounts of Canada as required by the Financial Administration Act.

Section 79 of the Financial Administration Act mandates the reporting of losses of money or public property. In the national accounts, the report is made in volume II, part II, chapter 3, which is “Supplementary Information Required By the Financial Administration Act”.

Section 23(2) states:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the appropriate Minister, remit any tax or penalty, including any interest paid or payable thereon, where the Governor in Council considers that the collection of the tax or the enforcement of the penalty is unreasonable or unjust or that it is otherwise in the public interest to remit the tax or penalty.

In the case of the GST fraud, the government has elected to remit the tax. Subsection (4) provides that a remission pursuant to this section may be granted:

(a) by forbearing to institute a suit or proceeding for the recovery of the tax, penalty or other debt in respect of which the remission is granted; (b) by delaying, staying or discontinuing any suit or proceeding already instituted; (c) by forbearing to enforce, staying or abandoning any execution or process on any judgment; (d) by the entry of satisfaction on any judgment; or (e) by repaying any sum of money paid to or recovered by the Receiver General for the tax, penalty or other debt.

Section 24(2) states:

Remissions granted under this or any other Act of Parliament during a fiscal year shall be reported in the Public Accounts for that year in such form as the Treasury Board may direct.

I stress the word “shall”.

An article in the National Post on Saturday describes how the government has kept Parliament in the dark. Since 1995 it failed to report hundreds of millions of dollars in public money due to fraudulent claims for GST refunds.

Federal tax officials are required by law to inform Parliament about such theft and fraud. I stress the point that federal officials are required by law to inform Parliament about such theft and fraud. The government has failed to comply with this statutory requirement and therefore is in contempt of Parliament.

According to the National Post in the 1994 public accounts, Revenue Canada reported 12 cases of GST input tax credit fraud. While the total losses were reported by the department as $1.9 million, the department could not establish how much, if any, of that money had been recovered.

As more criminals exploited the scheme and fraud losses began to rise in the mid-1990s, the National Post reported that the information regarding such frauds vanished from the annual public accounts, with one exception. The department disclosed a case in 1995 regarding one of its own employees.

The National Post article references a CBC report that revealed that GST fraud has cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. It said, “One expert told the public broadcaster that taxpayers may have lost $1 billion over the past decade”.

A spokesperson for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency claimed that it stopped reporting these losses because they were not losses. I am not an accountant, but since the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency cannot recover the money, I would declare those losses as losses, as I am sure, would all other Canadians.

A footnote in the 1995 public accounts says that tax officials are unable to add up the losses from the GST fraud because their systems cannot provide the information. That is no justification for not informing Parliament.

The National Post reports that the former Auditor General, Denis Desautels, reported in 1990 an unidentified case of GST input tax credit fraud involving more than $20 million in fraudulent refunds.This loss was not reported in the 1990 public accounts report or any report since.

We have experienced eight years of delay and the government has decided to refrain from collecting this tax because, by its own admission, it is unable to collect the tax. The government has not reported these losses to Parliament as required under the Financial Administration Act.

On November 21, 2001 the Speaker delivered a ruling in regard to a complaint by the member for Surrey Central who had cited 16 examples where the government had failed to comply with legislative requirements concerning the tabling of certain information in Parliament. In all of the 16 cases raised on November 21, a reporting deadline was absent from the legislation. As a result the Speaker could not find a prima facie question of privilege.

However, on November 21, 2001, the Speaker said in his ruling at page 7381 of Hansard :

Were there to be a deadline for tabling included in the legislation, I would not hesitate to find that a prima facie case of contempt does exist and I would invite the hon. member to move the usual motion.

The deadline in this case is an annual requirement for the government to table public accounts in the Parliament of Canada. It would appear this has not been done since 1995. This legislated deadline has not been met and therefore a prima facie question of privilege does exist.

All Canadians have a right to hear from the Minister of National Revenue and the former minister of finance to find out why this was not reported to Parliament so that Canadians could have a look at this. This is a terrible affront to Parliament, to all members of the opposition and government backbench members who are not involved in the cabinet, to know that a cabinet deliberately hid this information from Canada and all members of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you find that there is a prima facie question of privilege and, if you agree, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Business of the House, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, could the government House leader advise what the business is for the rest of today, tomorrow and the rest of next week before we break for the Christmas recess?

[Privilege, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a further point and add to the member's fourth point regarding the perception in the public domain.

There is also an article in the Ottawa Citizen stemming from the report of the Auditor General about the government withholding information in the form of an audit from Parliament's other watchdog, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Its chairman, the very capable member for St. Albert, is quoted as saying:

I find this very curious. The minister says she wants to be open and transparent on the matter, but it appears the government is hiding behind the police and keeping us in the dark...finding out about this second audit through the media adds fuel to the fire.

Mr. Speaker, in the context of the member's fourth point, I ask you to consider this ruling from March 16, 1983. Mr. Mackasey raised a question of privilege in order to denounce accusations made in a series of articles appearing in the Montreal Gazette to the effect that he was a paid lobbyist.

On March 22, 1983, on page 24027 of Hansard , the Speaker ruled that he had a prima facie question of privilege. The reasons given by the Speaker from page 29 of Jeanne Sauvé's Selective Decisions states:

Not only do defamatory allegations about Members place the entire institution of Parliament under a cloud, they also prevent Members from performing their duties as long as the matter remains unresolved, since, as one authority states, such allegations bring Members into hatred, contempt or ridicule.

On page 214 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada there is a reference to reflections on members. It states:

The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect to utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterance which do not meet the standard. As put by Bourinot, “any scandalous and libelous reflections on the proceedings of the House is a breach of privileges of Parliament....

I would think that headlines talking about lies and contempt could be considered utterances, which do not meet the standard. I think this institution deserves more respect than that unless of course it is true, which is why we are raising the issue. We must either punish those who are responsible for bringing the authority and dignity of Parliament into disrepute or exonerate members and this House.

Consider, Mr. Speaker, the reputation of the member for LaSalle—Émard, who was the finance minister for most of the years the gun registry has been in existence. His very future as Prime Minister may be at risk by this billion dollar boondoggle and disrespect for Parliament. He of all people would want to get to the bottom of this issue.

Who is to blame and who should take responsibility? The Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary are clearly responsible for the possible misleading statements to the House, and the Minister of Finance and the former minister of finance are responsible for the sloppy financing and the boondoggle itself.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will rule on this and send it to the procedures and House affairs committee so we can get to the bottom of this whole issue.