Brent Rathgeber

[Public Service of Canada, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in 90 minutes the House will debate amendments to Bill C-461 dealing with public sector salary disclosure. For weeks, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has become quite fond of saying that on that side of the House the Conservatives will always stand up for taxpayers, and I want to put that theory to the test.

Will the government support amendments to Bill C-461, fully supported by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, to lower the salary disclosure bar for public servants from the ridiculous $444,761 to a more defensible sum, and that is the salary of a member of Parliament?

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would be the last person the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office would take any advice from on this issue or any other.

As some members know, before I served in this place I also had the honour of serving in the Alberta legislature. In that capacity I served under former, now deceased, premier Ralph Klein. He had a very different methodology when it came to dealing with problems or even crises.

He would get in front of the issue and would hold a press conference. He would have a mea culpa. He would explain what he knew. The media was very responsive and he found out that the Alberta electorate could be very forgiving. I think a little contrition and openness and transparency would go a long way to restoring the confidence of Canadians in the government.

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not speak for the Liberal Party, so I cannot answer that question. I can comment on what the member indicated earlier on how we restore confidence in Canadians that the government of the day is responsible and acting in an open and transparent method. I do not have an easy answer to that question.

During the 45 minutes per day of question period in this chamber, it has been almost exclusively consumed with this issue since we came back after Thanksgiving. The nation's business is really being put on a shelf as this chamber, especially during question period, is almost entirely consumed with this one issue.

I do not know what the perfect method is for the government to convince Canadians that it is open and transparent. Question period does not seem to be working, so that is why I support the motion to have the Prime Minister appear before a parliamentary committee.

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a rarity, I suppose, for me to rise to participate in a debate. I thank my friend from Winnipeg North for sharing his time with me and allowing me to put a couple of comments on the record regarding this very important motion.

I come to this issue with a slightly different perspective than previous speakers in that I was elected as a Conservative, as I think members of the House know. I support the Prime Minister, although no longer unequivocally since I left his caucus. I now have taken the position that, as an independent member of Parliament, I will examine government bills and legislation on a piecemeal basis and support those that I think are meritorious and for the benefit of my constituents and oppose those that are not. That applies, of course, to opposition motions as well.

When I look at the opposition motion that we are debating here this afternoon, it is with some reluctance that I have come to the conclusion that I have to support the motion. I am reluctant for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it has come to this, that the Liberal opposition has had to use one of its opposition days to raise a motion to compel the Prime Minister of Canada to appear before the access to information and ethics committee to testify under oath as to what he did or did not know concerning what is consuming the Canadian public as the Wright-Duffy scandal.

It is sad that it has come to this point because I believe in responsible government. In the British parliamentary system, the government is responsible to Canadian citizens through this elected chamber. Canadians elect parliamentarians, 308 of us currently and there will be a few more after the next election, and our job is to hold the government to account. Had the government been more forthcoming with respect to what it knew and did not know, I do not believe the motion would be necessary. The fact that it is necessary I find very regrettable.

I, too, hear from hundreds of constituents on topics regarding virtually every aspect of government. However, in the last six months no single topic has dominated the emails, phone calls and casual conversations with my constituents more than the so-called Senate scandal. However, it is not a Senate scandal. The problems with respect to the Senate expenses are big problems, but they are, in my view, the least significant aspect of all of this. As offended as I suspect most Canadians are that senators are alleged to have claimed housing and travel expenses they were not entitled to, and they are outraged at that, the bigger issue in my view and in the view of Canadians and constituents I have talked to is the Prime Minister's involvement with respect to one of those senators, that of course being Senator Duffy.

The bombshell was dropped in this place on May 14 or 15 that the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister had cut a cheque in the amount of some $90,000 to reimburse Canadian taxpayers for Senator Duffy's ineligible expense claims. That raised many questions, not the least of which was what the quid pro quo was. What did the Prime Minister's Office and the chief of staff expect that senator to do in exchange for this very generous gift of $90,000? Of course, we have heard all sorts of allegations and suggestions.

The senator has indicated in the other place that there was some massive conspiracy orchestrated by the Prime Minister's Office to make that scandal go away, which was becoming a political scandal, and therefore, I suspect, salvage the reputation of a senator who at one time was a very loyal and valued member of the Conservative caucus and the Conservative Party, especially on the fundraising circuit. The problem I have with all of this, from what I hear in the other place and in question period on a daily basis, is that none of this qualifies as evidence.

There are many lawyers in this room and we should be very concerned about what is happening in both chambers of Parliament. Everything is protected by privilege, none of it is under oath and none of it is subject to cross-examination, yet very serious allegations have been made. It has been suggested that the Prime Minister's Office may have breached the Criminal Code of Canada and the Parliament of Canada Act with respect to influencing a sitting legislator. That is a very serious charge that, if made out, could result in jail time for those convicted.

On the other side of the equation, of course, are three senators whose very offices are held in the balance of a vote that I suspect is going to take place within 90 minutes. They have not been criminally charged, but they have been accused of being, shall I say, “creative” with respect to their expense accounts.

Again, there is all sorts of contrary evidence with respect to those suggestions. There appears to be more or less compliance with the audits that were undertaken, but the legislative committees that examined those audits came to different conclusions and made certain orders. Some of those orders have been complied with, and in the case of Senator Duffy, under some fairly unorthodox matters.

This is where I wish, quite frankly, in the House of Commons during question period that Canadians and parliamentarians would get the answers that we deserve. We believe in responsible government. We have had responsible government in this country since before we were a country. In 1848 in Nova Scotia, Joseph Howe was the premier of the then colony of Nova Scotia, the first colony anywhere in colonial Britain to achieve responsible government.

It is a very simple concept. The government, the cabinet, the executive is responsible to the democratically elected chamber, which is this place. Therefore, it is in this place that, all things working out as they should, the Prime Minister ought to, in my view, answer the questions from the opposition, from the third party and from members of his own caucus if they were so inclined to ask with respect to what the Prime Minister knew and when he knew it.

I have consistently believed the Prime Minister, and I have been very public about this. I have been asked many times and I have always indicated that I believe the Prime Minister's version of events, that he was kept in the dark regarding this highly unusual, unorthodox and possibly illegal transaction between his former chief of staff and a sitting senator. However, I am not sure that ends it.

We live under the parliamentary concept of the convention of responsible government. The Prime Minister is responsible for the operation of two departments of that government: one is the Prime Minister's Office and the other is the Privy Council Office. The Prime Minister is responsible to this democratically elected chamber for what goes on there.

Based on the dribs and drabs of information that we have received during question period, we know that there were some very unorthodox activities, possibly illegal activities, between the then chief of staff and three sitting senators. It is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to answer not only for what he knew or did not know, and he has been very clear about what he did not know, but also to answer for the operation of the department that bears his name. He is the PM in the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office.

It is a systemic breakdown of a system with no checks and balances, even within the Prime Minister's Office, involving a rogue chief of staff and apparently several other individuals, a few according to the Prime Minister and up to 11 or 12 according to some media reports. That this type of systemic breakdown could occur where that number of individuals would be involved or at least have knowledge of an operation and could somehow keep the Prime Minister unapprised of it, I think, is worthy of examination.

The Prime Minister ought to come forward with some candour with respect to what goes on in his office. How can this type of activity go on without his knowing about it?

I was elected as a Conservative. I am one of those who came to Ottawa on a so-called “white horse” to clean up government. I believe in the Prime Minister, but I would think that he would want the opportunity to salvage his reputation and that of his government by appearing before a committee, since the Conservatives do not seem to be inclined to do it in the House of Commons during question period.

Admittedly, question period only allows for very brief questions and even briefer answers, and seldom are they ever really answered anyway. However, a committee, where people have multiple rounds of questions and can follow up, would be an opportunity for the government to come clean and for the Prime Minister to restore the integrity of his office.

I think it is important that the Prime Minister do so, because the integrity of the Prime Minister is fundamental to Canadians' belief in their government.

[Government Advertising, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board documents tabled last week show that the finance department has spent an additional $15.25 million shilling for the economic action plan, bringing the total to $113 million since the economic action plan's inception.

Now the government defends this largesse by explaining that the ads are necessary to inform Canadians about some program or issue, yet its own survey indicates that they have not been successful in either directing traffic to the website or to calling the advertised toll-free phone number.

In this time of fiscal restraint, when will the government stop wasting taxpayers' money on this self-serving drivel?

[Finance, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week's Speech from the Throne made a vague reference to balanced budgets and reducing the cost of government. It stated that the government will introduce balanced budget legislation, but only during normal economic times and with timelines for returning to balance in the event of an economic crisis.

My questions are for the Minister of Finance. Does the government intend to pass balanced budget legislation or merely to introduce it? Who gets to define “normal economic times” and “economic crisis”? If it is him, Canadians would like to know what those definitions would look like.

[Employment, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta economy is the engine of economic growth for Canada. With an unemployment rate of less than 4.4%, temporary foreign workers are simply a reality for many Alberta employers.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration knows, and in fact he has said publicly, that when the Royal Bank attempted to use the TFW program to outsource 45 information technology positions, it was doing so illegally and outside the existing rules of the program.

Why did the government overreact by changing the rules, making the program more expensive and difficult to access, rather than simply enforcing the rules against outsourcing?

[Taxation, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Canadians filed their 2012 income tax returns. April 30 is the date that Canadians contemplate their tax obligations.

According to the Fraser Institute, a family earning over $74,000 will pay over $9,000 in income taxes in 2012. However, that represents less than one-third of that family's total tax obligations. When payroll taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes and import duties are added, suddenly that family's total tax bill is 43% of its budget. If we compare that to only 37% of the family budget going to food, shelter and clothing, it puts tax obligations into sobering perspective.

Moreover, as deficits represent deferred tax obligations, one's tax bill is even higher.

The knowledge that over 45% of family income goes to one level of government or another allows taxpayers to assess if they are receiving value for money and hold government to account for the taxes it collects.

Only a concerted effort to reduce government spending at all levels of government will return Canadian tax burdens to more appropriate levels.

[Privilege, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is really an honour for me to add a couple of comments in support of the member for Langley, who yesterday alleged that his parliamentary privilege had been breached.

Members will appreciate that this is a unique situation and an important point of privilege, and that it deals with the collective rights of all members of the House. The member for Langley alleges that his parliamentary privilege was affected in that on March 21, he was denied what was his expected and promised slot to deliver an S. O. 31, also known as a member's statement. The reason he states that his promised slot was removed was that the topic “was not approved”.

I am troubled by this turn of events, and I and most members believe that it is larger than what might have been the subject matter of that S. O. 31. I suggest that all members of the House should be troubled by the turn of events last Thursday. S. O. 31 reads as follows:

A Member may be recognized, under the provisions of Standing Order 30(5), to make a statement for not more than one minute. The Speaker may order a Member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of this Standing Order.

According to the rule, it is clear that the Speaker, and only the Speaker, can order a member to resume his or her seat if the member's statement is over one minute or is improper for some other reason. Denying an S. O. 31, according to the words of the Standing Order, is the exclusive prerogative of the Speaker. No other member of the House has the authority, delegated or otherwise, to deny a private member the opportunity to make a member's statement.

When members' statements were first introduced in S. O. 31 in 1983, then Speaker Sauvé stated on January 12, 1983, that this period was intended to provide members with an opportunity “to voice serious issues of international, national or local concern”. Although the S. O. 31 came into force in 1982, its genesis is in a rule that existed in the House from Confederation until approximately 1940. The practice was that members could seek unanimous consent of the House to move a motion without notice. Unanimous consent was almost always given and was so routinely given that the House had to eventually restrict it to matters of “urgent and pressing necessity”.

However, the matters of urgent and pressing necessity prerequisite was so routinely ignored and so many members were rising, that more formal rules were considered and adopted. Therefore in 1982, a special procedure committee concluded that the former practice requiring unanimous consent was used for purposes for which it was never intended. They opted for a new Standing Order that would become Standing Order 31, which would enable members to make statements on current issues on a daily basis during the first 15 minutes of the sitting.

Previous Speakers have been guided by a number of well-defined prohibitions. On January 17, 1983, when introducing statements by members, then Speaker Sauvé stated that members may speak on any matter of concern, and not necessarily on urgent matters only. As well, personal attacks are not permitted and congratulatory messages, recitations of poetry and frivolous matters are all out of order. Marleau and Montpetit state at 363 that these guidelines are still in place today, although Speakers tend to turn a blind eye to the latter restrictions.

Therefore, nowhere in the Standing Orders or in the enunciated guidelines do the members' statements need to be vetted by any other member or committee of members. Since 1983, additional restrictions have been placed on members' statements by the previous occupants of your chair. Subsequent Speakers have ordered members to retake their seats when offensive language has been used, when a Senator has been attacked, when the actions of the Senate have been criticized, when a ruling of a court has been criticized and if the character of a judge has been attacked.

It is true that certain practices and customs have evolved to provide some order and predictability to the 15 minutes prior to question period. It is also true that it is written in the commentary:

In according Members the opportunity to participate in this period, the Chair is guided by lists provided by the Whips of the various parties and attempts to recognize those Members supporting the government and those Members in opposition on an equitable basis.

However, the Speaker retains discretion over the acceptability of each statement and has the authority to order a member to resume his or her seat if improper use is being made of these Standing Orders.

I have a couple of observations regarding the Chair being guided by lists provided by the whips of the various parties.

First, it is the Speaker who has the discretion to deem a member's statement unacceptable. Nothing in the rules allows this discretion to be delegated, and there is no suggestion that the Speaker has delegated the authority to any other member of Parliament.

Second, the wording in the usage is “guided by”, not “bound by”, so I would submit it is permissive, not mandatory. Therefore, while the Speaker may be guided by lists provided by the various whips, the Speaker is in no way bound by these lists.

I can see that these lists are certainly convenient for the Chair in providing an orderly introduction of the 15 members who will be presenting S. O. 31s on any given day, but nothing in the Standing Orders or in practice authorizes the whip to choose the 15 speakers.

Moreover, it is submitted that convenience for the Chair through providing an orderly rotation so that when one member sits, the next one stands can violate neither the letter nor the spirit of the standing order.

For these reasons, I support the member for Langley in his case that his parliamentary privilege has been compromised by having to submit his proposed member's statement for vetting. This is a process that is not contemplated by the standing order and would appear to be completely contrary to the stated purpose of the member's statement, which is to allow members to address the House for up to one minute on virtually any matter of international, national, provincial or local concern.

We do not know if the rejected statement from the member for Langley would have fitted into one of those broad categories. Since he was not allowed to deliver it, we will never know. That is a violation of not only the member's right to deliver a statement but also of the right of this House to hear his statement.

Accordingly, I would ask that under the circumstances you find a prima facie case of breach of privilege with respect to the member for Langley.

In a Parliament where the government and the opposition control such a large portion of the parliamentary calendar and agenda, private members' bills, motions and S. O. 31s are the very few mechanisms that members have to bring forward matters of importance for their constituents.

I would submit that if the House does not jealously protect the rights of members to bring forward matters of concern to their constituents and if it does not strictly enforce those rules, the roles of the private member, Parliament and ultimately democracy have all been equally compromised.

[CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency Act, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all hon. members from all sides of the House who have participated in the debate regarding private member's Bill C-461.

Let me start by dispelling some of the concerns from my friends from the New Democratic Party. This bill is not an attack on the CBC. I wish they would assess the statute on its face rather than developing conspiracy theories as to why we are promoting it.

Section 68.1 of the current Access to Information Act has been determined by two courts, including the Federal Court of Appeal, to be unworkable. It creates an exclusion and then an exemption to that exclusion, which is a recipe for controversy. It led to expensive litigation and ultimately the Federal Court of Appeal and the federal trial court agreeing with the Information Commissioner that the Information Commissioner must be able to see the documents in order to determine whether disclosure is appropriate.

I listened intently to my friend from Halifax, who did actually read the bill before she spoke. She was curious as to why an exclusion is not the best way to protect the independent broadcaster. The reason is quite clear. It is section 36 of the Access to Information Act that sets out the powers of the Information Commissioner, and they are broad. She may summon and enforce the appearance of persons. She may receive affidavits, take evidence on oath, and she can compel the production of documents. More than difficult, it is borderline impossible to create an exclusion that could coexist with the broad powers of the Information Commissioner that are set out in section 36.

What is the way to balance the rights and needs of an independent public broadcaster and the law that says the Information Commissioner ought to be the one to arbitrate disputes? It is the prejudice test. I did not make up the prejudice test. The prejudice test was cited by the Information Commissioner before the access and ethics committee when she testified at its study on section 68.1. Section 68.1 is so flawed that a standing committee of Parliament did an entire study on it. The Information Commissioner recommended a prejudice test, such that if it can be shown that release of the documents would be injurious to a party's independence then disclosure is inappropriate.

It was interesting to hear the comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre. He talked about what cabinet would think about this bill if it came to committee. Then we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that the government was going to propose amendments to the bill. They do not want to disclose the salaries of DMs 1, 2, 3 and 4 or the comparable salaries of any other government appointments. If I were a member of the opposition, I would think very seriously as to why the government was going to propose amendments to this bill to exclude all income levels under and less than the DM 4 level.

With respect to this bill, my friend from New Brunswick had the most sage speech. As many members know, he was the former director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and understands very well that the concepts of transparency and openness are fundamental to democracy. We in this chamber are members of Parliament. Our job is to hold the government to account; that is, the departments, the agencies and the crown corporations. We cannot hold government to account when government institutions withhold information from us or from other agencies or from other Canadians who are requesting it. Knowledge is power and the only way we can get knowledge is if we have access to the information.

Lastly, this is far from an attack on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The salary disclosure requirements of this bill are to be applied in the entire federal public service. CBC is in no way being singled out. Transparency is not the enemy of a public institution, far from it. Transparency leads to trust. There is trust that there is proper stewardship over public resources. The people at CBC should want to disclose. They should want this legislation so that Canadians can once again have the trust that they are the proper stewards over public resources.

I encourage all members to support Bill C-461, and in an unamended form, when it goes to committee.