John Reynolds

[Privilege, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to Bill C-36 which was tabled earlier today. Bill C-36 was drafted to address security issues facing Canadians as a result of the attack on the United States on September 11. It is particularly unfortunate that the security of the very bill designed to protect the security of Canadians has been breached.

On the weekend the National Post reported the contents of Bill C-36 and indicated that it was briefed by officials from the Department of Justice. The article published on October 13 entitled “New Bill to Pin Down Terrorism” described the bill in detail and quoted officials from the department. For example, the article declared:

One official described the list of terrorist groups as an “evergreen document that can be updated fairly regularly” with names being added or deleted as circumstances change.

This official is quoted extensively throughout the article. I do not know of any member of the opposition who has been given this type of briefing prior to today. Two of my members who were at the briefing said they could have got all they wanted out of the National Post .

Even if a member had received such a briefing, I draw attention to the case of Bill C-15. As you are aware, the Minister of Justice and her department have been down this road before. As you are also aware in the case of Bill C-15, the House was very lenient toward the minister considering the severity of this type of disrespect for the role of the House of Commons and its members.

On March 15 the Speaker ruled on the question of privilege of the member for Provencher regarding an incident whereby the media were briefed before members of parliament on Bill C-15. The Speaker indicated there were two important issues in the case: the matter of the embargoed briefing to the media and the issue of the access of members to information required to fulfill their duties. In your ruling you said:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation. To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone. In this case it is clear that information concerning legislation, although denied to members, was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House. I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

This matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee concluded:

--the protocol of the Department of Justice whereby no briefings or briefing material should be provided with respect to a bill on notice until its introduction in the House of Commons should be adopted as a standard policy by all government departments. We believe that such a policy is respectful of the House of Commons and its members. It recognizes the legislative role of parliament, and is consistent with parliamentary privilege and conventions of parliament.

The committee noted that the adoption of such a policy should not be viewed as preventing the provisions of courtesy copies of government bills on a confidential basis to opposition critics shortly before their introduction. The committee went on to say:

--this incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of the House of Commons and its members. Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of parliament's constitutional role in legislating. The rights of the House and its members in this role are central to our constitutional and democratic government.

The committee heeded this warning:

Failure to adopt appropriate measures could lead to a reoccurrence of this problem in which case the House would have to consider using its power in a more severe way. The acceptance of an apology will not necessarily be considered a sufficient response.

With respect to Bill C-36 it is clear that members of the media were told of the contents of the bill on the weekend ahead of members and before its introduction in the House.

It is also clear that no effective measures to secure the rights of the House and its members were put in place. Like Bill C-15, the minister and her officials have shown contempt for the House. If you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Business of the House, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my usual Thursday question. Could the government House leader bring us up to date on what we will be doing for the rest of the week and when we come back from Thanksgiving break?

Could he tell us if the anti-terrorism legislation will be ready when we return? If so, what areas will it be covering? Could he give the House an assurance that between now and when we return on October 15 there will be no leaks about what is in the legislation other than what he will advise us of today?

[Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will start this morning by thanking all members of the committee for the work they have done on the modernization of parliament. I specifically thank the clerks, Audrey O'Brien and Diane Diotte, for the great job they did in assisting the committee through all the work, as well as our researcher, James Robertson. They did a commendable job.

I also thank the Deputy Speaker, the member for Stormont--Dundas--Charlottenburgh, who acted as chair for the committee which had to come up with a unanimous report. It is not always easy to be a chair and deal with all the political parties in this type of debate. I congratulate members for the work they did. I thank them on behalf of all parliamentarians and all Canadians.

Democratizing government and improving its accountability are bedrock Alliance principles. When the 37th parliament began the Liberal government was not interested in reforming parliament in a meaningful way. It started off on the wrong foot. The only reform pursued by the government was the restriction of the ability of members to submit amendments at report stage. The scheme was so unpopular it required the use of closure to ram it through.

Despite that start the House established a modernization committee. I commend the government House leader for agreeing to the parliamentary reforms in the report. Most of the proposals tend to favour the opposition. I think the government House leader recognizes that over time the opposition has lost a great deal of procedural ground.

As a result parliament has been on the brink of becoming dysfunctional. The government's powers are sweeping. If the opposition is to provide the necessary checks and balances it must be accorded certain rights. An opposing view is crucial to the functioning of parliament.

Stanley Knowles, who was a fierce defender of the rights of the opposition, said:

--you do not have full political democracy let alone the economic as well as political democracy unless you include a full and unquestioned recognition of the rights and functions of the opposition to the government of the day. Only in this way can you protect the rights of minorities. Only in this way can you make sure that the force of public opinion will be brought to bear on the legislative process.

Another respected parliamentarian, former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, believed that:

If Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions...The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends.

Our goal should be to work toward establishing equality of strength between the government and the opposition. While the report is moving in the right direction we still have a long way to go. I am pleased the government House leader talked about digesting the report for a while and looking forward to making further changes in the future.

Many of the ideas and concepts in the modernization committee's report came from the Alliance Party's parliamentary reform package, building trust, that it launched at the beginning of parliament. We approved allowing candidates for speaker to make speeches prior to their election. This would let all members see and hear the candidates in the Chamber before there is a vote.

Another change pertains to the use of written questions and the reference of unanswered questions to a standing committee. This would increase the opposition's long term ability to hold the government accountable for its actions, something we have not been able to do in the history of this parliament. It is an important change.

There is a requirement for the minister sponsoring any bill whose passage involves closure or time allocation to justify the use of closure in a 30 minute question and answer session. This would make the government pay a political price each time it invoked closure.

It would ensure Canadians received an explanation from the minister. They would be entitled to an explanation not from the minister's parliamentary secretary or the government House leader but from the minister responsible. The minister would need to explain why the bill needed to have closure in the House. It is an important move.

The approval of the House of the appointment of the clerk of the House and officers of parliament would recognize that they report to parliament and not to cabinet or the Prime Minister. That is a positive move.

Requiring that annual reports of officers of parliament be referred to and considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would ensure that elected parliamentarians gave them careful and timely consideration.

The televising of committees should be expanded. Committees are where most of the real work of parliament happens. Up to now few have been televised. The proposal would have them videotaped and made available to CPAC and the press gallery.

In this time of crisis due to terrorism and the prospect of going to war it will be especially important that all major committee hearings over the next few weeks are televised across the nation. People should be able to see the head of CSIS, the head of our defence forces and the ministers in charge being questioned by all members of the House. That will be very important. It is a crucial part of the report.

The committee recommended an improvement to the way the estimates are considered. Each year the Leader of the Opposition, in consultation with opposition House leaders, would be empowered to refer the estimates of two departments to committee of the whole. Ministers would be required to defend their estimates in the House for up to five hours. This would improve and highlight the accountability process of the estimates.

This is done in provincial legislatures now. When I was minister of the environment in British Columbia I would sometimes be questioned in the house by the opposition for hours and days on the estimates in my department. That would happen here with only two ministers but it is a good start. It would bring accountability to each minister.

Witnesses in committee would be reminded that they are required to tell the truth when appearing before a committee. They would be informed by the chairman of the consequences if they do not. That is important.

I would be remiss not to mention the report's unfortunate omissions. We have a lot more work to do. I am pleased that the government House leader agrees with that. The committee did not consider tackling the issue of free votes.

The McGrath committee studied the confidence convention and concluded that only explicit motions of confidence or matters central to the government's platform should be treated as confidence. All references to confidence were expunged from the standing orders that regulate the functioning of parliament.

Despite these reforms most votes of parliament still take place along strict party lines. Recently the opposition adjourned the House on a Thursday afternoon. Some members wondered if that could be considered a matter of confidence. This is a clear sign that members need to be reminded about the confidence convention.

The hon. member for Calgary Southwest described this point in a speech he delivered in the House in April 1998. He said:

There is a myth in the House that lurking out there somewhere is the fiery dragon of the confidence convention, the erroneous belief studiously cultivated by the government that if a government bill or motion is defeated, or an opposition bill, motion or amendment is passed, this obliges the government to resign. This myth is used to coerce government members, especially backbenchers, to vote for government bills and motions with which they and their constituents disagree and to vote against opposition bills, motions and amendments with which they substantially agree. The reality is that the fiery dragon of the confidence convention in its traditional form is dead. The sooner the House officially recognizes that fact, the better for all.

We did not recommend changing any rules because there are no relevant rules to change. We wanted to reaffirm what the rules are. We could adopt a motion that says the House shall not consider the vote on any motion to be a question of confidence in the government unless the motion is directly related to the government's budget or the motion is explicitly worded as a question of confidence.

We were hoping the committee would recommend wording to clarify ministerial responsibility. We have a lot of documents written by the PCO and academics, but the House has never made a statement of its own. It is ironic because ministers are responsible to the House.

The U.K. passed a resolution regarding ministerial accountability. It can be found on page 63 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May. We should come up with our own wording. The statement should include the usual constitutional references and some additional statements to address recent issues.

The House should urge the Prime Minister to make important announcements in the House and not at Liberal fundraisers. The ethics counsellor still reports to the Prime Minister instead of to the House regarding the ethics of cabinet ministers.

The election of standing committee chairmen and vice-chairmen by secret ballot were not included in the report. It would have brought more autonomy to committees. The election of the Speaker by secret ballot was designed to take the choice away from the Prime Minister and give it to the entire House. Since committees are creatures of the House and the independence of chairmen is as important to members when they are in committee as when they are in the House, the secret ballot procedure used to select the Speaker should be applied to the election of standing committee chairmen and vice-chairmen.

Removing parliamentary secretaries from committees was another proposal the government felt it could not live with. This would have strengthened the independence of committees. Committees will continue to be impeded by the interference of cabinet through parliamentary secretaries.

There was progress on closure and time allocation. While the committee recommended a 30 minute question period before a motion of time allocation or closure is moved, it could have gone further. It could have recommended that the Speaker be granted more authority to deny a motion from being put if he felt the rights of the minority were being infringed.

The committee also failed to come up with an agreement on adding a question and comment period to a minister's speech on second and third reading stages of a bill. We will therefore have to continue the practice of allowing ministers to drone on for 40 minutes without an opportunity to challenge what they are saying. The most interesting and informative aspect of debate is the question and comment period. The bill would deny us that on most important speeches.

Regrettably there is no progress on private members' business, just the expression that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should deal with it.

Our supply motion last June was designed to commit the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to come up with a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable by November 1. The recent survey by the subcommittee on private members' business indicated that over 70% of the members were unhappy with how the system works. An overwhelming majority wanted all items in the House to be votable. We hope that will happen by November 1.

The committee did not see fit to come up with a workable procedure to deal with omnibus bills. The way we presently deal with omnibus bills is described on page 619 of Marleau and Montpetit. It suggests that historically disputes over omnibus bills are brought about by political interaction. It describes on page 618 how the opposition paralyzed the House for 14 days in 1982. Surely there is a better way to resolve disputes of this kind.

Our most recent example of Bill C-15 was handled in a similar although less severe way. Apart from the begging of all opposition parties, the official opposition had to threaten the smooth and timely manner that legislation is processed through the House. There must be a better way.

The Speaker could be given the authority to divide a bill if in his opinion the omnibus nature of a bill prevents members from casting their votes responsibly and intelligibly on behalf of their constituents. I do not see why committees cannot be given the authority to divide a bill without having to seek the authority of the House.

There may also be a simpler solution. The government could negotiate with the opposition what principles are to be lumped together in an omnibus bill before tabling the legislation. This would eliminate unnecessary procedural battles in the House.

I thank all my colleagues and the House leaders in this institution for the changes that took place. They are not perfect but we are certainly moving forward.

[Business of the House, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on my usual Thursday question I would like to ask the government House leader about the business for the rest of today, for the rest of this week and for next week.

Is he prepared yet to advise the country and the House on discussions he has had with opposition House leaders with regard to a special debate on air traffic in Canada?

[Business of the House, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thank the government House leader for a doing a job on which opposition House leaders have been working for a long time.

It is a difficult job to get the Minister of Justice to change her mind and we thank him for that. All Canadians will thank him because what we have done today is good for all Canadians.

[Customs Act, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would add to comments of the government House leader that the motion was put to the House a number of days ago. Not only has the mover of the amendment spoken to it but three members from our side have spoken to it as well.

The Speaker moved at the time that the motion was in order. Otherwise we would not be debating it now. The government House leader may perhaps be asleep at the switch but the motion has been debated and approved by the Speaker. Why would the hon. government House leader challenge the Speaker at this late date?

[Terrorism, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, they say they will make sure but their members are walking out of committees, so we cannot have votes to bring people to committee to explain to them what is happening.

The member countries of the European Union know something about fighting terrorism. Far too many of them have faced this challenge for years and the safety and security of their citizens is a daily concern. That is why they moved quickly to adopt anti-terrorism legislation.

Last week the Prime Minister said he would follow the example of the European Union when it came to mourning the dead. Why can this government not now follow the example of the European Union in honouring those who have fallen by moving swiftly to enact antii-terrorism legislation in this country?

[Terrorism, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the events of last week, including the arrest in the U.S. of Mr. Al-Marabh, have underscored the pressing need for anti-terrorism legislation in the country.

Yesterday the 15 member countries of the European Union came together and adopted tough new measures that would give their police and security forces the tools they need to arrest and extradite suspected terrorists. The European Union acted quickly to ensure that it had the tools needed to fight the war against terrorism.

When will the government do the same thing?

[Canada-U.S. Meeting, September 20th, 2001]

Madam Chair, I enter the debate this evening with an obvious concern and the worry most Canadians share at this time. The unfolding events since the terrorist attack on the United States last week have gripped the world. It is an anxiety ridden time. At each moment we await further developments in this escalating situation.

Last Tuesday the world stood transfixed, staring in disbelief at the television screen. Slack jawed, spellbound Canadians watched in living colour the unspeakable atrocities being committed live against the country's closest ally and de facto protector. This horrifying example of hate will be forever etched in our minds.

The Prime Minister has been invited by President Bush to meet with him in Washington next week. The meeting is probably the most important one the Prime Minister will ever have. He will no doubt be asked to define Canada's contribution to the anti-terrorist military campaign led by the United States and dubbed Operation Infinite Justice.

While the catastrophic events took place on American soil, it is now evident that no country or its citizens are immune from this terrorist scourge. In an article this morning, the former chief of strategic planning for Canada's spy agency, David Harris, issued a grave warning to Canada, saying a terrorist attack on Canada is imminent and adding that as far as Canada is concerned it is coming. The CSIS annual report alerted Canadians to the fact that 50 terrorist organizations are already established in Canada. Mr. Harris added that Canadians have been too relaxed for too long, thinking that terrorists will not strike here.

In contrast to the Canadian complacency, we saw in the person of British Prime Minister Tony Blair a swift and decisive individual providing strength and comfort in a time of crisis. Mr. Blair, leading a government that has led the way with tough anti-terrorism legislation, has made it absolutely clear that Britain will support the United States completely, including with military support if requested.

All the lethargy, inaction, procrastination and self-delusion will not make the problem go away. The Prime Minister has said he will tell President Bush not to make a sensational short term gesture. President Bush has already indicated that this will not be the case and the struggle we are in and the manner in which he will conduct himself will be of a protracted nature.

What has the Prime Minister of our country to offer? Indecisiveness is not on the table. As Lee Iacocca used to say, “Lead, follow or get out of the way”.

What Canadians are expecting is a clear commitment from the government that will put the safety and security of Canadians first. They want to see the government commitment to bringing in comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation. They want to see increased safety and security measures at our borders, at our airports and on our airlines.

They want to see increased resources put into our military, police and intelligence services, especially CSIS and the RCMP. They want to see a clear commitment from the government that it will stand by the United States every step of the way, including participating in military action if necessary, as is our obligation under article 5 of NATO.

This week Canadians learned everything the Prime Minister was not prepared to do or enact to fight terrorism. Tragically, we learned little about what he was prepared to do. He was not prepared to enact anti-terrorism legislation along the lines of that already in place in the United States and Britain. Despite all the evidence and argument proffered by the Canadian Alliance, the Prime Minister remained stubborn in his resolve not to rock the boat. When the Canadian Alliance presented the House with a motion asking the government to refer to committee draft legislation to deal with terrorism, the government refused it.

I do not know what part of our motion the government disagreed with. Was it against naming all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada? Was it against a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism or terrorist organizations? Was it against the immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, signed by the government in 1999 but still not brought into force?

Was the government against the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting terrorists to act abroad from Canada? Was it against the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even to countries like the United States where terrorists might face the death penalty?

Was it against the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or of failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations so that an incident like the Ahmed Ressam case never happens again?

I do not know. All I know is that the government was so opposed to these ideas that it would not even send these proposals to committee in draft form.

One critical element that sustains this terrorist network is money. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has repeatedly raised the warning flag about fundraising activities on our soil. As a signatory to the 1999 United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, Canada agreed to take steps to prevent and counteract, through appropriate domestic measures, the financing of terrorists and terrorist organizations, but little has happened since Canada signed this United Nations convention.

Instead, the government is satisfied with an existing piece of legislation that would deny charitable status to the groups deemed to be channelling money to terrorist organizations. In other words, we will not ban terrorist financing, we will just take away tax write-offs for terrorism. What a hollow and shameful response by Canada.

Rather than use the United States and the British anti-terrorist acts, Canada assumes that normal posture of “We will deal with it in the future”. Is it laziness, negligence or just plain hubris in the face of catastrophic consequences?

Similarly, the Prime Minister was not prepared to implement measures to ensure security at our borders, at our airlines or at our airports.

We have seen no proposals that deal with better screening of refugee claimants to weed out security risks. We have seen a dismissal of the American proposals for joint immigration and refugee policies with the United States, our so-called best friend and neighbour, and a secure North American perimeter.

Adding to the list, the Minister of Transport said he was not prepared to add sky marshals to our planes as the United States is implementing. It is too costly, I guess, until he adds up the cost, as a transportation analyst advocated, of having a commercial airliner ram into one of Canada's commercial high rise towers.

Nor will the Prime Minister and the government commit to doing what is necessary to restore the resources to the Department of National Defence, the RCMP, CSIS and other security agencies that have been brutally cut under the Liberal government.

There is no way that the Canadian forces, which have declined from 90,000 to 55,000 personnel under the government, would be capable of deploying the troops promised to NATO under the 1994 defence white paper if military action becomes necessary.

The RCMP has been slowly bleeding, while CSIS has been slashed, losing 40% of its staff under this government. How can we hope to track criminals and terrorists like Ahmed Ressam if we do not fund our police and intelligence services?

Accordingly, the Prime Minister continued on this path of identifying what he would not do by not pledging the support of our armed forces to the cause until asked. What will it take for the Prime Minister to tell Canadians what he will do to deal with this terrorist evil? A poll today shows that 81% of Canadians want us to participate in a military coalition against states that sponsor terrorism, but the Prime Minister will not tell the House whether he agrees with 81% of Canadians unless the president asks him first.

On this side of the House, we think Canada has a moral obligation to send military support if requested. By invoking article 5 of the NATO charter, Canada has agreed that the cowardly terrorist attack on the United States was an attack on Canada as well and we are obliged to assist with military forces if requested.

As the U.S. ambassador has said:

Canada has a military capability that has helped the United States, that has helped the world, and we would hope that they would help us now.

Canada has an obligation to act. We hope that when the Prime Minister meets President Bush he will commit Canada to concerted action against terrorism.

Today in Brussels, European justice and interior ministers approved urgent measures to combat terrorism, including much closer co-operation with Washington. The ministers agreed to adopt by December a common definition of terrorism and a Europe wide arrest warrant for suspects accused of serious crimes. They endorse proposals by the European commission executive that would harmonize police and judicial action and close loopholes that have hampered arrests and extradition processes across EU borders.

I quote the ministers:

We are determined to take the necessary steps to ensure that European citizens are provided with the highest level of security so that any future attacks are thwarted.

In other words, European ministers told citizens of the union what they were prepared to do, not what they would do.

It is the Prime Minister's turn. He will have the opportunity with President Bush next week. How is he prepared to help our best friends and neighbours? We know only too well what he will not do. That is not what Canadians or the president of the United States want to hear.

Mark Twain in defining courage and decisiveness said, “In the beginning of change, the patriot is a scared man, brave, hated and scorned. When the cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot”.

Will the Prime Minister go to Washington and stand now or will he join later?

[Business of the House, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, will the government House leader advise the House on the business for the rest of the week and the business for next week?

It is only a matter of a few weeks before the national sex offender registry legislation should be tabled. Will he advise the House if that will happen.