Garry Breitkreuz

[Petitions, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is on amending section 318 of the Criminal Code in regard to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. The petitioners point out that it is Parliament's duty to protect the full extent of freedom of expression, thought and conscience. Therefore, they ask that Parliament take all measures necessary to protect the rights of Canadians to freely share their religious and moral beliefs without fear of prosecution, and they point out that the vote that we are having tonight on Bill C-250 is a very significant vote in that respect.

[Petitions, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House as I have four petitions to present. The first is in regard to ethical stem cell research. The petitioners point out that non-embryonic stem cells, which are known as adult stem cells, have shown significant progress in regard to research, without the immune rejection. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat illnesses and diseases of Canadians.

[Privilege, September 15th, 2003]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have about 20 seconds left.

The letter continues on to say:

--the statements in the Press Release.

As well, we would appreciate receiving any analysis the Department conducted on the KPMG work or any other work it did to support the above cited conclusions.

In conclusion, it is my understanding that all the information requested in the assistant auditor general's letter has not been provided by the department. If your investigation proves this point, then the justice minister has also shown his contempt for the Office of the Auditor General, a respected officer of Parliament.

There is a volume of evidence here, as is obvious by this lengthy intervention. If the Speaker agrees with the documented evidence I presented today, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Privilege, September 15th, 2003]

Mr.Speaker, I wrote to you on July 17, 2003 to give you notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege with respect to: first, misleading statements made by the justice minister in the House on February 3, 2003; second, similar misleading statements made in a new release issued by the justice minister's department that same day; and third, the failure of the justice minister to provide all the documents requested by the Auditor General in her office's letter to his department dated February 14, 2003.

We were not made aware of these misleading statements or the Auditor General's letter until Tim Naumetz reported it in several CanWest newspapers on July 16, 2003. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this matter as Parliament has been in summer recess until today.

I will start by listing the documents I have reviewed in preparing my question of privilege today and that I will have delivered to your office today: first, a copy of the National Post article that broke the story dated July 16, 2003 titled “Auditor-General raised alarm over gun registry audit: Justice Department misrepresented financial review, officials said”; second, a copy of the letter from the Auditor General's office to the deputy minister of justice dated February 14, 2003; third, a copy of page 3068 from the Commons Debates dated February 3, 2003; fourth, a copy of the news release issued by the Department of Justice dated February 3, 2003 titled “Minister Of Justice Releases Results Of Independent Gun Control Program Reviews”; fifth, a copy of the KPMG transmittal letter to the justice department dated January 31, 2003; sixth, a copy of the KPMG report titled “Canadian Firearms Centre: Report of Findings from the Performance of Specified Procedures” dated January 31, 2003; and seventh, a copy of the Hill Times article from Monday, August 4, 2003 titled “[Minister of Justice] in contempt of Parliament: Alliance MP Says Justice Minister misled House over gun registry boondoggle”.

After reviewing the justice minister's statements in Hansard and in his press release, I have come to the conclusion that the minister is in contempt of Parliament. The evidence is overwhelming.

The crux of the case is the minister's statement in the House on February 3, 2003 when he said:

--the KPMG study assured the department that the information compiled about past spending was accurate...

I underline the word accurate.

However, on February 14 the Auditor General's office informed the justice minister that the KPMG study did not do this because KPMG did not conduct an attest audit.

In the letter from the Office of the Auditor General to Mr. Morris Rosenberg, deputy minister of justice, dated February 14, 2003, assistant auditor general, Mr. Hugh McRoberts, wrote:

We are concerned that there may be insufficient information in the KPMG Report to support the conclusions in the Press Release. We would like to be able to respond to any Parliamentary concerns about the KPMG Report that may be raised in the forthcoming hearings.

There are two statements in the Department's Press Release that are causing concern. These statements conclude that the KPMG Report--

For everyone's benefit I would like to point out that these are quotes right from the minister's press release.

“Has allowed the Department of Justice to confirm that the necessary systems are in place to ensure the integrity and completeness of relevant financial data; and

This work has provided the Department with confidence that the information compiled on past expenditures is accurate”.

We are concerned that the work described in the KPMG report and accompanying transmission letter does not appear to be sufficient to support these statements. For example, KPMG states on page 2 of its Report that “the procedures performed on the expenditures are limited, they do not constitute an attest audit of the expenditures of the Canadian Firearms Centre”. Further, KPMG states that it is not expressing an audit opinion on the expenditures of the Centre or the Canadian Firearms Program.

Since KPMG's work was of a limited nature and was not an attest audit, we are concerned that it may be being inappropriately used in the Press Release to draw conclusions about the integrity and completeness of the Departmental financial information on the expenditures of the Centre or the larger Canadian Firearms Program.

I think the use of the word “may” was being polite. The fact is that the minister's press release of February 3, 2003 was inappropriately used. The quotes in the press release speak for themselves.

In fact, on page 2 of the assistant auditor general's report to the deputy minister of justice he stated:

We continue to be concerned about this issue because Parliamentary debates relating to information in the Department's Press Release suggest that the KPMG work is being interpreted as having been an attest audit of Program expenditures; and that the KPMG has concluded that the Department's financial information on the Program is complete and accurate.

Here is the contentious quote from the minister's press release:

The first report, by consulting firm KPMG, has allowed the Department of Justice to confirm that the necessary systems are in place to ensure the integrity and completeness of relevant financial data. This work has provided the Department with confidence that the information compiled on past expenditures is accurate.

Not only did the justice minister show his contempt for Parliament and the public by making public these misleading conclusions in his press release but he also said much the same thing in the House of Commons on February 3 during routine proceedings.

This is a direct quote from the justice minister from page 3068 from the Commons Debates for that day:

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the KPMG study assured the department that the information compiled about past spending was accurate and corresponds to the figures submitted to this House in the public accounts. In addition, the KPMG report provides us with a basis for continuing to report the full costs of the program, as requested by the Auditor General of Canada.

Based on the concerns raised by the Office of the Auditor General about the limited nature of the KPMG report, it is clear to everyone that the justice minister misled the House with this statement and represents a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament.

The 22nd edition of Erskine May on page 63 describes ministerial responsibility and states:

--it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;

On page 119 of Erskine May's 21st edition it states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

A Speaker in 1978 ruled a matter to be a prima facie case of contempt where the RCMP were alleged to have deliberately misled a minister of the crown and the member for Northumberland--Durham resulting in “an attempt to obstruct the House by offering misleading information”.

More recently the Speaker ruled a question of privilege to be prima facie on February 1, 2002. It involved the Minister of Justice who made misleading statements in the House. In that case the minister advised the Speaker that he had no intention of misleading the House, which would not make it deliberate. Nevertheless the Speaker felt that it was in the best interest of the House to have a committee look into the matter.

The Speaker said:

I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House. Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation. I refer hon. members to Marleau and Montpetit at page 67:

“There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties;...”

On the basis of the arguments presented by the hon. member and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage-Lisgar to move his motion.

The facts are clear. The justice minister's statements in the House were not accurate. For this he should be found in contempt of Parliament.

Since the minister's deputy received the letter from the Office of the Auditor General on February 14 warning him of the inaccurate statements in his press release, the minister has not corrected the public record nor has he corrected the statements he made in the House about the KPMG report. For this he should be found in contempt.

The minister must also have known that they were not accurate at the time he made them. Consequently, he knowingly misled the House, and for this he should resign.

Finally, the February 14 letter from the Office of the Auditor General pointed out even more contemptible behaviour on the part of the Minister of Justice and the officials in his office.

On page 2, the assistant auditor general wrote:

We understand that KPMG may have provided additional verbal or written assurance to the Department to allow it to form the conclusions in the Press Release. We would appreciate receiving the letter sent to the Department from KPMG indicating that it had provided assurances to the Department to support the statements the Department made in the Press Release. We would also appreciate it if the Department would obtain and forward to us copies of KPMG working papers that support the specific assurances it made to the Department and which support--

[Question No. 224, June 10th, 2003]

With respect to the payment of licencing fees from Canadian Wheat Board pooling accounts contrary to section 7(3) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act: ( a ) what facts has the Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board discovered; ( b ) what corrective action has he taken; ( c ) what were the results of the investigation by his officials and law officers; and ( d ) since January 1, 2001, what is the total amount the Canadian Wheat Board has taken from pooling accounts to pay interprovincial and export licensing fees including the administrative and management costs for the national licensing program?

[Firearms Registry, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have just made another damning discovery about the government's firearms fiasco. In an effort to push out a pile of paper called gun registrations, the Liberal government failed to complete the background checks and call character references before issuing firearms licences.

Talk about straining at a flea and swallowing a camel. If the Solicitor General is trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, why did he not do the reference checks? Why?

[Statutory Instruments Act, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-205 sponsored by my colleague from Surrey Central who has done a lot of work in this area. It fixes some essential procedures here in the House.

The member for Surrey Central has worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents and for the people of Canada to bring a greater degree of democratic accountability to the House of Commons. He has spent many long hours in the House and in various committees in the pursuit of parliamentary reform. This bill is a product of his experience and hard work as co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee. It should be given very careful consideration.

The purpose of the bill is to provide for a disallowance procedure for statutory instruments or delegated pieces of legislation which are more commonly known as regulations. Disallowance is one of the traditional means for a legislature to oversee the creation of regulations. A disallowance procedure would give parliamentarians an opportunity to reject a statutory instrument made by a delegate of Parliament.

It is significant to note that 20% of laws in Canada stem from legislation debated and passed by Parliament. The remaining 80% of laws are made up of regulations. As opposed to legislation, regulations receive virtually no debate in the House of Commons or Senate. There is no public input or study and there is no media scrutiny.

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations carries out the only scrutiny, which is very limited, of regulations in Parliament. This committee, although generally misunderstood, is an essential watchdog protecting democracy, controlling bureaucracy, and holding the government to account. The committee does not judge regulations on the basis of policy matter, general merit or necessity. Its study of regulations is instead limited to the questions of validity and legality. Members follow uniform and clearly defined criteria in their examination.

When the joint committee agrees that a regulation should be revoked, it makes a report to the House of Commons containing a resolution to the effect that a regulation or part thereof should be revoked. Once that report is tabled in the House the applicable procedure will depend on a decision by the responsible minister. Unfortunately, the current disallowance procedure is seriously defective.

The procedure currently practised resulted from a recommendation of the special committee on reform of the House of Commons back in 1986. Before that time there was no general disallowance procedure in place at the federal level in Canada. The government of the day placed the disallowance procedure in the Standing Orders with the intention it would remain there on an experimental and temporary basis until such time as a decision could be made to its effectiveness. If successful, it was the intention of the government to implement a statutory procedure.

In the last 16 years we have seen the effectiveness of having a so-called temporary disallowance procedure, but still nothing has been done to give it a statutory footing. The current procedure, because it is contained in the Standing Orders, limits the possibility of disallowance to the statutory instruments that are made by the governor in council or by ministers of the Crown. As a result, the considerable body of delegated legislation created, for example, by the CRTC, the Canadian Transportation Agency or the National Energy Board is not subject to the disallowance procedure provided in the Standing Orders.

All members would agree that it is desirable that all statutory instruments subject to review by Parliament under the Statutory Instruments Act be subject to disallowance. There is no reason why a regulation made by the governor in council or a minister can be disallowed by Parliament while a regulation made by some other delegate of Parliament cannot.

Another defect of the current procedure is that it relies on the cooperation of the governor in council or the minister concerned to carry out a disallowance after the House of Commons has ordered it.

In itself, an order of the House of Commons cannot effect the revocation of a regulation. The authority that made a disallowed regulation must still formally intervene in order to revoke that regulation following the creation of a disallowance order. While the House could deal with the matter as one of contempt, there are no other legal sanctions or even consequences that arise from a failure to comply with the disallowance order. An order of the House of Commons that a particular regulation be revoked is not binding on the author of the regulation and cannot be enforced by a court.

Placing the disallowance procedure on a statutory footing, as this bill recommends, would remove the need for a regulation making authority to take subsequent action to give effect to an order of this House, thus eliminating the potential for conflict between Parliament and the executive. The procedure would also be made more efficient as there would no longer be a need for the House of Commons to address an order of the cabinet ordering the revocation of a statutory instrument. The legislation itself would now deem a disallowed instrument to be revoked by eliminating the need for further action by the governor in council, or the minister who adopted the disallowed instrument. Compliance with the disallowance decision would be improved by eliminating any possibility of a regulation making authority not complying with the disallowance order of the House.

By providing a clear legislative basis for the current disallowance procedure, Bill C-205 would, first, allow Parliament's authority to extend to all instruments, subject to review under the Statutory Instruments Act, instead of only those made by the governor in council or minister. Second, it would remove the necessity for additional action on the part of the regulation making authority in order to give effect to an order of the House that a regulation be revoked. This disallowance procedure is important to restore transparency and protect democracy in the House of Commons.

Bill C-205 reflects the all party consensus of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations on the need to strengthen parliamentary oversight of the hundreds of federal regulations made each year pursuant to legislative authority delegated by Parliament.

This private member's bill should appeal to all members of the House, regardless of partisan affiliations. Currently, the powers of the governing party, and particularly the executive, are sweeping. If members are to provide the necessary checks and balances, they must be accorded certain rights. Their views are crucial to the continued functioning of Parliament. Accepting these small changes to the scrutiny of regulations would be a significant first step in our efforts to make Parliament more responsive to Canadians. I urge all members in the House to give the bill very careful consideration and to pass it as soon as possible.

In conclusion, we on this side of the House are trying constantly to improve the democracy in this place by allowing MPs to be more effective in performing their duties here. One of the things that needs to be emphasized is that so much of what happens here concerns enabling legislation. We pass enabling legislation which then allows for a lot of regulations to be made. In effect, we are now saying that those regulations must be more carefully scrutinized. There must be a process, a mechanism, to ensure that those that are disallowed, those that are scrutinized, have the proper attention given to them.

I want to thank the member for Surrey Central for all the work he has done on Bill C-205. Many people listening to this may not be fully aware of the significance of the bill. Let me assure everyone listening that this is a very important step in improving democracy in the House. I again thank the member for bringing Bill C-205 forward. I look forward to everyone passing the bill.

[Privilege, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the justice minister's direct contravention of the Firearms Act and contravention of one of your rulings.

On November 21, 2001, at Commons debates pages 7380 and 7381, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Surrey Central concerning the failure of the minister of justice to table a statement of reasons for making certain regulations as required by subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act.

I would like to now cite three separate quotes taken directly from the Speaker's ruling. I quote:

I should point out to hon. members the Firearms Act provides that where the minister is of the opinion that the ordinary regulatory process in section 118 should not be followed she may in cases specified by the law proceed directly to the making of new regulations or to the modification of existing regulations. However in such cases the minister is required by subsection 119(4) of the act to table in both houses a statement of her reasons for so doing.

The hon. member for Surrey Central drew to the attention of the House 16 cases between September 16, 1998, and December 13, 2000, where the minister made use of this exceptional power but failed to table the required documents in the House. He argued that although no deadline is specified in the Firearms Act it is surely unreasonable for the House to be kept waiting for up to three years for the tabling of the minister's reasons.

The ruling went on:

In the case before us, the legislation drafted by the justice department contained from the outset the provisions obliging the minister to table in parliament reasons why section 118 should not apply for certain regulations. Furthermore, in the orders in council relating to each case, a standard paragraph is included which reads as follows:

And whereas the Minister of Justice will, in accordance with subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act, have a statement of the reasons why she formed that opinion laid before each House of Parliament;

Therefore, Her Excellency, the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, pursuant to paragraph X of the Firearms Act, hereby makes the annexed regulations--

The Chair must conclude from this evidence that far from being an arcane technicality cloaked in some dusty statute or other, the requirement for tabling of reasons is not only perfectly clear in the legislation but is invoked as an integral part of each such order in council. All the more reason, it seems to me, for the department to comply readily with the requirement given a modicum of efficiency in advising the minister.

The ruling went on:

Strictly speaking, these defects do not negate the minister's fulfillment of her statutory obligation, but they do point to a carelessness that appears to be characteristic of the way in which these matters are being handled by the officials in her department.

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. However, given that no such deadline is specified, I can only find that a legitimate grievance has been identified.

I would encourage the hon. Minister of Justice to exhort her officials henceforth to demonstrate due diligence in complying with these and any other statutory requirements adopted by parliament. I look forward in future to the House being provided with documents required by law in a timely manner.

That was your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary research branch has informed me that despite your stern warning and contrary to your explicit instructions, the justice minister has on four more occasions failed to table his statement of reasons for avoiding the laying of his regulations before Houses of Parliament, as required by subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act.

The four orders in council identified by the Library of Parliament are: SOR/2002-440, 5 December 2002, regulations amending the importation and exportation of firearms regulations; SOR/2002-441, 5 December 2002, regulations amending the authority to export or import firearms regulations (businesses); SOR/2002-444, 5 December 2002, regulations amending gun show regulations; and, 5 December 2002, regulations amending the public agents firearms regulations.

While you ruled that the member for Surrey Central did not have a prima facie case of privilege, mainly because there is no deadline in the Firearms Act for the minister to table the statement of reasons, the situation we have today is different.

The minister is now in a clear contempt of Parliament, because not only has he shown complete disregard for the legislative requirements of this House, just as his predecessor did, but he has ignored your very clear instructions in your previous ruling.

I ask the Speaker: At what point does the minister's disregard for the legislative requirement of an act passed by this House become contempt? How many times does the minister have to be caught before it becomes contempt? Sixteen times last time. Four times this time. If not this time, will the minister be in contempt the next time we catch him?

Finally, how can we expect ordinary Canadians to obey the Firearms Act if the justice minister himself does not, cannot, or will not, regardless of what you say or rule?

If the Speaker rules that these four new violations of section 119(4) of the Firearms Act by the Minister of Justice constitute a prima facie case of breach of privileges of this House, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Firearms Registry, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to wonder if the Solicitor General has any idea what is going on in his department. The minister's officials admit they cannot even process all the paperwork before the deadline at the end of this month, a completely arbitrary deadline.

The firearms database crashed. Does he know that? They have lost an unknown number of records. His own incompetence will criminalize legitimate gun owners. The minister's stubbornness will cost taxpayers even more.

Is the minister willing to criminalize more law abiding gun owners, or will he just scrap the program?

[Firearms Registry, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is now faced with the sixth province that refuses to prosecute the 600,000 gun owners who have so far been unable or unwilling to register their guns. The Solicitor General simply deals with the problem by telling the Nova Scotia justice minister to “get up to speed”.

Only Prince Edward Island and Quebec still support the gun registry. When will the Solicitor General start listening to the provincial justice ministers instead of insulting their intelligence?