George Baker

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the first committee that examined this question was held in 1976. Members of that committee included the hon. Stanley Knowles and also the hon. Walter Baker and James Jerome, and also myself in 1976, so I predate the hon. member by about 10 years.

The hon. member has raised an interesting question: What was in that report? What was in that report is exactly this: that the power of veto would be used for regulatory bodies such as the CRTC. Does the hon. member remember that? He recommended a veto power by committees for appointees to the CRTC, to the Canadian Transport Commission, to regulatory bodies, to positions of the House of Commons. Just imagine that, but this was a very good recommendation.

The final recommendation the committee made on veto, which all members of the House agreed to, concerned not only regulatory bodies, but also the privacy commissioners, commissioners that are appointed by cabinet.

The point is this: that what the committee recommended unanimously was that there would not be a veto for positions that included ambassadors or anybody else and that is what is in our standing orders. That is what the opposition agreed to and that is now what it is disagreeing with.

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

If the hon. member would listen he might learn something.

It was just after the charter was brought in. Members of the House of Commons, if the hon. member will remember correctly, brought in a unanimous report. In that unanimous report, which Mr. Blaikie cannot remember, although I am not supposed to mention the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona, he cannot seem to remember very clearly, he took part in it and he should remember it. He should remember what is in the committee, but anyway--

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

That is right and that is the point. That is exactly right and that is why members from the opposition should get it straight. This is Canada. This is not the United States.

Not only in the U.S. under the constitution are the ambassadors examined, but also members of the cabinet and also members of the supreme court in the United States. That is in the constitution of the United States. Now what is in the constitution of Canada? We know that it is the Prime Minister, the executive branch of government, that appoints those three groups of people: the ambassadors, the cabinet and the supreme court.

So the word ethics is in the U.S. senate direction under the constitution that determines what the senate committee will report to the senate and to the government. They have an ultimate veto. In other words, the president of the United States has to go back after the senate determines that someone is not appropriate and the president of the United States has to delay it and go back to it the next year.

What is in the Canadian act? What is in Standing Order 111 in the House of Commons? What are the words found there? I do not hear anybody from the opposition mentioning what the words are. The words were determined by a standing committee headed by a member of the official opposition, supported by the NDP, and were voted on by every party in the House wholeheartedly and passed. What were those words? The words were “qualifications and competence”. That is from Standing Order 111 of our standing orders. It gives the committee 30 days after the tabling of the name of the nominee or the appointee to a position by order in council.

Here is the point. Under our rules, Beauchesne for the Canadian House and Erskine May for the British house, if we look at citation 863, there is a famous paragraph. What it states is that any witness who appears before a standing committee cannot claim not to answer because his answer might incriminate him. He cannot say that. A witness cannot refuse to answer on the basis that he or she took an oath in a cabinet. No, our rules are very clear, as are the rules in the British house, as are the rules in the Australian house. It is in citation 863. Members can look it up. It says a person cannot claim as an excuse a contract or solicitor-client privilege. It also states, in one clear sentence, that in regard to the excuses used for witnesses not to answer in a court of law, because in a court of law there are certain things that a witness can say and refuse to answer, that is not the case before a standing committee of the House of Commons.

That famous Newfoundlander James McGrath, who was a PC but pretty straightforward and a good thinker, chaired the committee in 1986, just after--

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will say a few words concerning the motion. You will have noticed that the hon. member from the official opposition mentioned the word ethics a moment ago. He asked, how else can we as a committee examine the word ethics? Then he gave a definition of the word ethics. Mr. Speaker, you know full well that the word ethics does not appear in the outline of any examination of any witness who appears before a standing committee that is to judge the person's qualifications as an ambassador, or of anybody else.

Where does the word ethics come from? It comes from the direction to the U.S. senate. The senate in the United States, under the U.S. constitution, examines the qualifications of every ambassador, by law.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the annual report to parliament on the administration of the acts within the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for the period from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a general economic development agreement to be signed with the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The argument is that the Tory Party is in favour of spending money in a low unemployment area in the city of St. John's versus an area in rural Newfoundland with high unemployment that was caused by his government's disastrous fisheries policy that allowed foreigners to take everything.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's information is of course incorrect. This is a federal-provincial agreement that is cost shared between the federal and provincial governments, and here we are with a decision to make. Do we fund, under federal-provincial agreements, businesses in areas of relatively low unemployment inside the overpass or do we fund outside the overpass where there is out-migration, the unemployment rate is high and where the town involved outside is willing to put in $750,000 of its own municipal tax money?

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is a federal-provincial cost share agreement that is being renegotiated.

The question is, should Canadian taxpayers have to put $10 million for the next five years into an operation in a low unemployment area while the rest of Newfoundland is suffering? The answer is no, not while I am here.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this money is in a federal-provincial agreement being renegotiated with a request from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The question here is this. Do we agree with the Canadian Alliance to put money in areas which do not need economic diversification, where the unemployment rate is low, or do we put it into rural Canada where the money is needed?

We are going to fight this anti-rural Canada attitude on the part of the official opposition.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian Alliance is asking me to sign my name to a piece of paper extending a five year agreement with the provincial Government of Newfoundland to commit $10 million of federal money, Canadian taxpayer money, to support a business for the next five years in an area of relatively low unemployment while the rest of the province has high unemployment, the answer is no.