John Reynolds

[Petitions, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of my constituents of the Sunshine Coast Peace Group.

This organization opposes the participation and attack, invasion or occupation of foreign countries, and is calling upon Parliament to declare Canada's non-participation in such aggression, to urge the UN to seek peaceful solutions, and to forbid the export of arms to any nation involved in military attack.

[Privilege, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. As my colleague the House leader for the Bloc has said, it affects all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, more and more we are needing your protection from this Liberal majority and this is a great example of it.

I will quote the Liberal member for Leeds—Grenville, a member of that committee, who said, “Mr. Chair, my best imitation of Johnny Cochrane has been circumvented by [the member for Toronto—Danforth's] apparent open confession on this”.

I think we have put it in play now. Whatever steps in terms of a report the Clerk needs to draft to send this matter to the House, I do not think we have any other option and I do not see the point in continuing to discuss it.

The circumstances here are extraordinary. There is partisan influence and partisan politics are under the influence of the Prime Minister's Office on this issue: the release of this information, which is totally confidential, and a member who brags about it because he knows he can win the majority of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, we have already had discussions today about what involvement you may have in a committee, but that committee is part of this House of Commons and part of Parliament and we need some guidance here.

A member has gotten away with something sacrosanct in the House. Something totally confidential should not be leaked. There was no permission from anybody to put it out, yet his own party then voted to let him off the hook.

Mr. Speaker, that is not acceptable and the House really needs your wisdom on this issue. It is very, very serious.

[Points of Order, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, when the member for Calgary—Nose Hill was asking a question in the House, the Minister of Health, which was very unusual for him, was yelling unparliamentary language across the floor. I know it was rather noisy and you may not have heard him, but I think he might wish to get up and apologize or withdraw that remark.

[Business of the House, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he could outline the business for the rest of the day, tomorrow and for the first week after we return.

[Budget Implementation Act, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a couple of minutes to congratulate the member for Dewdney--Alouette for his great career here, as the former leader of the party and house leader in British Columbia, and also as House leader of our party here. He has been a great friend and a great member of our caucus.

We all know he has had some real trying times in the last few years and we appreciated his strength during that period of time. We are happy that he will be going home, but I would not be surprised to see him back here some day. He will go home and spend a bit of time with his family and let them grow up again. Some of us will have to retire sooner or later so we will be needing some good, young guys to come back to this place and fill in for us.

I thank him for the great job that he has done for not only our great province of British Columbia, but for all of Canada. We wish him well in the next few years.

[Points of Order, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have full respect for your ruling. I would ask you, based on what the government's parliamentary secretary said, will this committee have to report to the House before this document is released to the public? My great concern is that the committee could do something that is against the rules of the House before we have a chance to rule on it.

Could I get some understanding as to whether it could release a document of this effect, based on the comments made by the Clerk that this would be improper?

Yes, I agree that committees have the power to do what they want to do. However, if the committee is going to do something that will embarrass the House of Commons, what can we do or what assurances can we have that they cannot just go and throw something to the wind and then the rest of us have to take the blame for that?

[Points of Order, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee has been considering a motion to release the in camera proceedings of Chuck Guité. The advice of the Clerk has been sought, and he has concluded that it would be prudent for the committee to seek an order of the House. His conclusion is based on precedent.

I have two letters from the Clerk, one addressed to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I will not read that whole letter, but I will quote from the last paragraph, and I will ensure that the whole letter is available to you. He says to the member:

In view of the actions of the House in 1978 and in the absence of other precedents suggesting other options, it would appear to be prudent for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to seek a House Order should it wish to make public in camera evidence from a previous session.

The Clerk also wrote to the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and again I will just read the last paragraph that sums up his letter. He says:

--I have found nothing that would lead me to reconsider the advice contained in my letter of March 24.

The letter of March 24 was to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I am raising this matter before the committee votes on its motion to release the testimony because if I wait until it is adopted, it will be too late and the damage will be done.

I ask the Speaker to consider intervening because it can be argued that the committee is going beyond its authority. If precedent has been established that it is the House that has the authority to release in camera testimony, as the Clerk has pointed out, then the committee is in breach of the rules by deciding the matter on its own.

On June 20, 1994 and November 7, 1996, the Speaker ruled:

--while it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

Powers conferred upon committees take a number of forms: the Standing Orders and the practices of the House. While there is no standing order to guide us, there is a clear precedent. Therefore, that would form part of the rules of this House, and if it is a rule that confers or restricts a committee, then a committee, while being the master of its own proceedings, cannot establish a procedure, or in this case release in camera testimony because it goes beyond this restriction established by a precedent of this House.

This debate is going on in the committee in a vacuum. We have the Clerk's opinion but we need a ruling from the Speaker. It is the Speaker who must rule because, as I pointed out, we are talking about a practice of the House, not a committee. I am concerned that the rules of the House will be broken, and the matter is too important to wait until after they are breached. It is not hypothetical because the motion is before the committee; the issue of whether or not the matter can be dealt with at a committee has come up. The question is out there but there has been no formal request from the Speaker to rule.

Already Mr. Speaker we have one member of the committee who leaked information from the in camera testimony. He said he did so because he was confident that the committee was going to pass the motion to release the information.

The other casualty in this matter is the chairman. The Prime Minister has lambasted him during question period, accusing him of blocking the release of the information. The chairman, Mr. Speaker, was only doing his job. He has interpreted the rules based on advice from the Clerk of our House. He wants to be cautious in this matter and rightfully so as the chairman of a very important committee of this House.

Despite his efforts, I do not think this matter can be dealt with at the committee level because it is a matter for this House to consider. If this House claims its authority to release that information, then the authority must be sought from this House.

That question needs to be answered before the committee releases that information. That is what the chairman is trying to determine. He is not the obstacle. It is the Liberals who refuse to follow the normal course to seek a House order. By attempting to circumvent the rules, they may be hampering their efforts and the efforts of everyone who wants to see this information released.

That is why they are in trouble with the sponsorship program. They did not follow the rules. Liberals feel that because they are the government, they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of the rules and maybe above the law. This is particularly problematic at committee where the tyranny of the majority can overturn a ruling of the chair who is only trying to keep order and follow the procedures and practices of this House.

If you need time, Mr. Speaker, to deliberate on this matter, I ask that you request the committee put aside its motion until you have clarified this very important issue before this House.

[Business of the House, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the usual Thursday question of the government House leader. I would like to ask him what the business is for the rest of this week and next week.

I would also like to ask him to assure the House that we will not have to cancel anymore committee meetings next week, because Liberal members are not showing up, and get down to doing the business of the House.

[Government Contracts, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this same Liberal individual went into an election 25 points ahead in the polls too and lost that election because of the same kind of nonsense that is going on right here.

The Prime Minister said that “no longer will the key to Ottawa be who do you know”. Canadians thought he was changing the lock when all he did was tinker with the key. Now it is not what one knows, it is who one knows in the PMO again. When will the Prime Minister keep his word and stop the practice and politics of cronyism?

[Government Contracts, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister vowed only last week to put an end to cronyism and political patronage. Canadians almost believed him when he said he would do it come hell or high water.

David Peterson is floating on heavenly waters today. The former Liberal premier of Ontario is also the brother of a minister in this Liberal government. His law firm has just been awarded a contract extension worth in the neighbourhood of $1 million over the next year. When precisely does the Prime Minister plan to “condemn to history the practice and politics of cronyism”?