Leon Benoit

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions that I would like to put. I would appreciate it if members of the committee could answer these concerns at some time, whether it be in debate in the House in the question and answer session after my presentation or in committee at a future date. There are some very interesting points which should be answered and should be responded to.

The first point raised by my colleague, the House leader for the Canadian Alliance, is the question of whether the committee acted properly, by the rules to which the committee has agreed to have a vote before going in camera. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker that did not happen in this case. There was no vote to go in camera and therefore the procedure was all wrong.

It seems interesting that the committee and the chair of the committee can just throw aside the democratic process on a whim, it seems, ignore the process agreed to by the committee and go ahead in a dictatorial fashion to have this discussion of the report in camera. Somehow that does not seem like anything they are particularly concerned about.

On what I believed to be very honest consideration of the matter, I decided that because of the improper procedure, because it was in the minutes of the March 2 meeting that in fact this report would be discussed in public. Because of these things I thought that meeting should be considered to be a public meeting.

I am quite concerned that the chair of the committee would have the nerve to stand in the House of Commons and express concern about what I did, believing that this was a public document and calling a press conference, not leaking this document to the media in the way the Liberals leaked the documents.

We brought points of privilege to you, Mr. Speaker, on several occasions expressing our concern that reports which were confidential reports without a doubt were leaked by Liberal members. They could only have been leaked by Liberal members. We have done this time and again. In those situations, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that we should not do these things but there was nothing you could really do about it.

In this case the chair of the committee has the audacity to come to the House of Commons and say that I am wrong because I did this publicly and not in a sneaky fashion. They routinely leak public documents. Most of the budget was leaked. We knew what was in the finance minister's federal budget before it was actually presented in the House, because it was leaked piece by piece by piece. This has become completely routine, and I do not think that is right.

Nor did I have any intention of doing anything wrong. The last thing I would want to do is anything which would show a lack of respect for the House, for the committee and for the rules of these institutions. That is the last thing I would do.

You have ruled, and I respect your ruling, that under these circumstances you have no choice but to put this back into the hands of the committee. I respect that, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you have examined the issue and I trust your word on that.

I would encourage the chair of the committee and other members to respond to this apparent contradiction that somehow it is okay to routinely leak documents which are clearly confidential, which is what Liberal MPs have done again and again. It is undeniable. I did it openly and honestly in a press conference. I presented a report which was marked confidential, but which I truly believed could not possibly be considered confidential. Because I did that in a public fashion, somehow I am in breach of the rules of the House in some way. I am interested in hearing the committee explain this. It is a very interesting contradiction, and I am looking forward to that.

As I said in my presentation to the House last week, if you look, Mr. Speaker, at the minutes of the March 2 meeting—and I tabled a copy of those minutes at that time—it said clearly in the minutes that it was agreed that this report would be discussed in a public meeting of committee, not in camera. I take the decision of the committee on matters like that quite seriously.

Also in Hansard , as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the committee did agree to have a vote of the committee before ever going in camera. That did not happen in this case. Furthermore, at the very meeting before the committee went in camera, I asked the chair of the committee to allow me to put forth a motion to reaffirm it was the rules of the committee that we have a vote before going in camera.

The chair would not allow the motion but said “You do not have to worry about that. We all know that and I respect that”, or something to that effect. That can be seen in the Hansard of that March 2 meeting as well.

It takes an awful lot of nerve for the chair of the committee and for the members of the committee to come to the House claiming that I have done what is wrong. I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that this should go back to the committee, but I am saying the committee should decide that in fact, no, I have not acted improperly.

Yet they are saying I did, when they completely ignore the rules of the committee which have been reconfirmed and reaffirmed by the committee at the very meeting before the committee went improperly in camera.

I am extremely concerned by the loss of democratic process in this institution, not just in committee. In these committees the process and the lack of respect for democracy, for the rules, the very rules that are agreed to, to govern the committees, are ignored routinely. I do not find that to be a laughing matter. I take that as a serious matter.

If we look at the House generally, the lack of respect for the democratic process has become routine. I have many people back home telling me that they see our House of Commons behaving more like an elected dictatorship than a democratic body meant to govern a country. They say that because they understand the Prime Minister and a few key people make the decisions, the big decisions, in governing the country.

Do backbenchers and MPs in the governing party have influence on the Prime Minister's decisions? I would suggest very little to none. The only influence seems to be what can be exerted by the members of opposition parties through the use of the media. We can take an issue which we think is an important issue, go to the media and get coverage. Through that method public reaction can come against the government. That seems to be the only way that we can have an effect. It is the only way that any member of parliament, other than the Prime Minister and his little group, have any effect on what goes on in the House. I am extremely concerned about that, and I have expressed my concern about that before.

Let us look at the issue of time allocation. It was a very few years ago when time allocation or closure in the House was something that was used rarely. Since this government took office in 1993, how many times would you think, Mr. Speaker, that time allocation and closure have been used in the House of Commons? It is approaching 60 times.

Look at the last 10 bills that have passed through the House and see how many times time allocation has been used to end debate prematurely on legislation. How many times do you think in the last 10 pieces of legislation which have passed in the House? A majority of cases.

This has become absolutely routine. Debate is not allowed in this place the way we expect it to be allowed on extremely important pieces of legislation like the new elections bill. The very act that will govern elections in this country, Bill C-2, passed through the use of time allocation. Debate ended after a very few hours. It is completely unacceptable. The official opposition, which is supposed to be given ample time to present our case to try to have an impact on legislation, was given only a few hours of debate on this important bill.

This has become routine. It is shameful. That is why it amazes me that the chair of this committee and the members of this committee would have the nerve to accuse me of doing something improper.

Look at the relative importance of these two issues. What was my great crime? My great crime was presenting in a public way, not in a sneaky way as they do, to the media a document which I believe truly was a public document. I believe I was doing nothing wrong. I was not willing to do it in a sneaky way, as the Liberals have done in so many cases. That is my great crime.

At the very meeting after it was agreed that this report would be discussed in public, after it was undeniably reaffirmed that this committee could only go in camera, into secret meeting, after a vote passed committee, in fact the committee went in camera without a vote. Does that sound like democracy? Does that sound like respecting rules of the committee? It just is not.

Look at the relative importance of the two wrongdoings here. You have ruled there was wrongdoing and I respect that, Mr. Speaker. At the time I believed there was not. Yet the chair knew he was violating the very rules of the committee when he took that committee into secret meeting in camera without having a vote of the committee and against the minutes as written in the document I tabled from the March 2 meeting.

Because I understand that you have now put this into the hands of the committee, Mr. Speaker, I ask the committee to seriously consider the relative importance of the violations that have taken place. As I suggested to you, Mr. Speaker—I asked you to rule on it and I understand that you could not—I would like the committee now to consider whether the chair of the committee should be removed from his position as chair.

To me, violating the very rules which were agreed on to govern the committee is a serious breach. There is no way that could have been done without the chair knowing exactly what he was doing, because I made a point of that at the very meeting before and Hansard will show this. I made a point of that in a way which could not be easily forgotten. It was that important I felt I should do that and that is what I did.

Mr. Speaker, I fully respect your decision. There are many more points I could make. I am sure there will be more debate on this, but I would like to ask the chair and the members of the committee after contemplating this issue, to deal with the issue of the actions of the chair. I would like them to seriously consider removing the chair from his position in the committee and I would like the committee to move on from there.

Last year with the former chair of the committee, we had a committee which I would say was completely dysfunctional. It just was not working. With the new chair we had a committee which I thought functioned quite well. We went into what was an honest discussion at committee dealing with the very sensitive issue of illegal migration into this country.

Mr. Speaker, you know what happened this summer. About 600 people came into the country illegally by boat. Every year around 23,000 people come into the country illegally through our airports, border crossings and by boat.

The committee debated. Witnesses came from across the country to deal with this extremely important issue. A Conservative member on the committee asked for assurance that the work of the committee would be considered in drafting the new immigration act. That assurance was given.

I received a leaked draft of the new act along with a schedule which showed that the new act went to the provinces for approval on February 25 and that the minister was going to approve the new act on March 7. The committee report which was supposed to be considered in the new act was not tabled until last week.

So there we were. Witnesses came to the committee in good faith and presented their thoughts on the issue of illegal migration. How are they to feel now knowing that their thoughts were not even considered in the new act?

The new act was not put together in a few weeks. It had to have been virtually a done deal back when we started with this issue before committee. Certainly the report tabled last week in no way could be considered in the new act because the act was a done deal at least three weeks before that. That is when I received my leaked copy of the new act.

Those witnesses gave of their time, their efforts, their money. They came to committee and presented their views believing they might actually have an impact on the new act. How must they feel knowing that they have been used by the committee? They have been used by the committee because what they reported to committee was completely ignored. The legislation was in place before the committee even reported.

That shows an incredible disrespect for Canadians, for people who care enough about an issue. In this case it is an issue which is important to the security of our country, illegal migration. They cared enough that they came and they spoke. I listened to them. Other committee members listened to them. They were completely ignored. How must they feel?

It is sad. When Canadians see these things happening they must completely lose their respect for politicians, for the House of Commons and for the committees of the House of Commons. They cannot possibly do anything but become cynical about the whole political process.

It is a sad thing when Canadians have that reinforced in the way they did by the chair and the committee. They ignored the committee rules and decided to discuss the committee report, a draft document, in secret and only then did they report it to the House.

The committee is functioning poorly now. At the previous meetings we were not even discussing a draft document. We were only discussing the witnesses we had heard and the committee went in camera. In other words it discussed the issue in secret. The reason had to be because the Liberals on the committee, a majority of government members who have control, were afraid that something they might say would be heard by their constituents and would reflect poorly on them.

Mr. Speaker, I see that I have no more time to debate this issue. I am looking for debate from others who feel that this is an important issue. I am looking in particular for a response from the chair of the committee. I also hope others will get involved in the debate because what debate in the House could possibly be more important than a debate on respecting the democratic process and respecting the rules of the House and of the committee? What else could be more important than that? The issue is that the chair of the committee and the committee did not respect the rules.

I appreciate having had the time to present my views. I look forward to hearing the views of other members.

[Bill C-23, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23, the Liberal bill which is before the House, will grant the same spousal benefits to same sex partners as those granted to married couples.

My office has been flooded with letters, e-mails and phone calls from people who strongly oppose this legislation. These are people who understand the importance of building and maintaining strong families.

There are two strongly opposed aspects of the bill. First, that the definition of marriage, which was reconfirmed by the House when a Reform motion was passed just a few months ago as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, is not included in the bill. This is quite a surprise, considering that the Liberal Party defeated a motion recognizing same sex marriages at its convention this past weekend.

Second, my constituents and many others oppose basing eligibility for benefits on whether couples have sex.

The fact that the government has tabled and will pass a bill which shows so little commitment to the family leaves no doubt about the value this government places on marriage and on the family.

[Privilege, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a clarification. In his reply, the hon. House leader for the government said that somehow I was using my complaints against the chair of the committee as a defence, and I was not. That is a separate issue. I only raised it at this time because the same information applies.

If I could just also mention that the hon. House leader talked about whether or not a committee goes in camera is a decision to be made by the committee. That was part of my argument. That never happened and the record will show that.

[Privilege, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I really would appreciate if the chair of the committee would allow me to say my piece. That is the respectful thing to do.

Perhaps I could add a few more comments regarding the minister and the chair of the committee. The committee launched at my request into hearings on the issue of illegal migration into our country. The chair of the committee, the hon. member for London North Centre, assured members of this all-party committee that our findings would culminate in a report which would be considered by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in developing long awaited new immigration legislation. The minister also assured committee members and Canadians right across the country that the report would be considered in developing this new legislation.

How do you think, Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are carefully following the proceedings of this committee, and especially the people who appeared as witnesses, must feel when three weeks before the committee presents its report I have received a draft copy of the new act which I released in public some two weeks ago? This new act is not to be confused with the draft committee report which I released in a media conference last Thursday.

Not only did I receive a copy of the new act, but I also received along with it the schedule called the critical path for the final stages of approval and tabling of the legislation. I have a copy of that here to be tabled, Mr. Speaker, if you would so choose to accept that document.

Of course, I would like to refer to just three dates in the critical path. It is important. The draft bill was sent to all the provinces on Monday, February 21. The final draft of the bill was to be signed by the minister on Thursday, March 7 and the act was to be introduced to parliament on March 30.

How is it that the very legislation which was supposed to have included information from the report of the committee on citizenship and immigration was a done deal before our draft report was even written? What a sick joke.

Members of the committee, each witness who appeared and all Canadians should be furious for using them like this. They presented to the committee with the best of intentions believing what they said would be taken into account in developing the new act. What a complete lack of respect for democracy and what a complete lack of respect for the Canadian public.

I am here today to answer to the government's charge that I stand in contempt of parliament for my action of releasing to the media, and to Canadians, a draft of the committee report which was marked confidential.

I believe I have made the case that in fact this report was a public document. I am here today as well to charge the chair of the committee, the member for London North Centre, with contempt of parliament for the reasons I have outlined in this presentation. I ask the Speaker to rule at his earliest convenience. I am looking forward to your ruling on both the charges which have been laid against me, contempt of parliament, and the charges which, Mr. Speaker, I am presenting to you against the chair of the committee, the member for London North Centre.

I look forward to your rulings, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you in advance.

[Privilege, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that you have given me a chance to speak to this very important issue. In my presentation I will explain why I do not believe in fact that I was in contempt of parliament. I would like to elaborate on that a bit.

I will begin my statement by quoting from the constitution of our country. There are a number of procedural requirements of the House of Commons provided in the constitution. These procedural requirements make up the rules of the House. These rules must be respected by the House and by its committees.

Section 49 of the Constitution Act provides that questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices. Further, Standing Order 116 states that in a standing committee the standing orders shall apply.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration did not decide to go in camera by a majority vote. It did not decide to go in camera as a result of a motion or a vote of any kind. The committee did not make the decision. The chair made the decision unilaterally. In fact it decided the opposite and reaffirmed this on March 2, 2000.

Even though in my opinion the committee could go in camera by way of a motion pursuant to the rules and practices, it only confirmed what these rules are. Specifically the evidence from the committee meeting of March 2 shows that the committee reconfirmed the House rules and therefore committee rules requiring a vote to pass by a majority to cause the committee to go in camera.

At the very next meeting the Liberal chair of the committee decided on his own and against the clear rules of the committee to ignore the democratic process and move the proceedings away from public scrutiny.

I think it is important to note that the reason the issue came up on March 2 at the committee meeting and at previous meetings is that the chair of the committee, the hon. member for London North Centre, had unilaterally moved meetings in camera, in other words to become secret, apparently to protect the government from possible embarrassing comments that Liberal members might make during discussion of what the committee had heard. That is what the discussion was on.

The discussion was on what the committee had heard from witnesses who appeared before the committee. There was no apparent reason other than political considerations. After all, all the witnesses were heard in public. I protested this improper decision and the committee chair agreed there was no good reason to hold these discussions secretly. I fully expected of course then that the next meeting would be a public meeting.

At the same March 2 meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration the committee agreed, and I quote from the minutes of proceedings “that the draft report be considered in public”. This is from the minutes of proceedings of the Thursday, March 2, 2000 meeting, the very meeting before the chair unilaterally chose to hold this meeting in camera with no vote from the committee. I would be happy to table this document, the minutes of proceedings.

Therefore the chairman did not only breach the constitution and the rules of the House, I would argue, but he breached the committee's own internal rules and the clearly documented will of the committee.

Furthermore I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to an argument at page 10464 of Hansard . On October 9, 1997, the Speaker ruled that committees must address their work processes and be very clear about how they expect draft reports and other material relating to in camera meetings to be treated. That was your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

In my opinion the committee had set out very clearly that the draft report was to be discussed in an open meeting prior to meetings being held in camera and that prior to any meeting being held in camera a vote would be taken.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was in camera illegally. If anyone were in contempt, I would charge that the chairman was in contempt of the House for usurping the authority of the House as provided for in the constitution of our country, in the rules of the House of Commons, and as decided by this committee itself. Therefore I believe the House should find the member for London North Centre in contempt for exercising authority beyond the authority granted by the committee.

For all these reasons I believe that I was not in contempt of parliament. To make it clear, the committee was not in camera. Therefore I was providing public information to the public. I am not in contempt, in my view.

There is one important and very pertinent piece of information which I feel I should present. The document I released was not the final draft of the committee report. Because the committee had gone illegally I believe in camera, this draft document was the only record I had of the proceedings of the committee. As the House knows the official record of the committee is not available to the public if the meeting is declared to be an in camera meeting.

As I have already explained, I believe the meeting was in fact a public meeting because the chair of the committee, the member for London North Centre, had illegally convened the committee in secret. The final draft of the committee has yet to be tabled in the House, but as I am sure you will find when it is tabled, Mr. Speaker, that draft is not the same as the draft of the document which I released in public.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 13th, 2000]

With regard to the groups consulted by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the course of the legislative review ministerial consultations from February 27, 1998 through to March 11, 1998: ( a ) which of the groups received government issued grants and/or subsidies; ( b ) what was the total grant or subsidy; ( c ) what was the reason for the grant or subsidy; and ( d ) which government department issued the grant or subsidy?

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate being given the opportunity to say that deceit is not acceptable in the House or anywhere else. Nor is using the word, and I do apologize for that. I got carried away in the heat of the moment.

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, we just heard the member for Guelph—Wellington say wonderful things about the finance minister's budget. The reality will not escape Canadians. As they look at their paystubs over the next five years what they will find will be grizzly indeed. That will be the reality check.

I want to talk a bit about $58 billion in tax relief that the Liberals claim. We have to take $7.5 billion from that over five years, which is social spending and not a tax decrease. I am referring to the child benefits. That is a social program. That is an increase in social spending and not a tax decrease. That has to be taken off the $58 billion.

The $29.5 billion increase in the Canada pension plan tax over the next five years has to be taken off, as well as the $13.5 billion which were scheduled tax increases that, according to the finance minister, will not be carried through. Is a scheduled tax increase which has been removed actually a tax reduction? The Liberals say so. I say it is not a tax reduction. That is a promise of more tax which we hear from the government all the time that will not be carried through. That is a nice thing, but it leaves as a bottom line $8 billion in tax cuts over five years. That is all.

What does that amount do for an individual? If we take it on a per taxpayer basis it amounts to $107 per taxpayer per year. That is what the promise the finance minister put in place and the member for Guelph—Wellington made sound so nice translates into. Nine dollars per month is all average Canadian taxpayers will see or $2.07 a week. It is disgusting. All these nice things are deceit in the worst way. The finance minister knows it and the member should know it.

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the presentation of the member for Kitchener Centre with interest. I am sure she made her comments with the best of intentions and believes them to be true. However, if the budget is as good as she says, then I would like to ask why we are still waiting for the finance minister's ship to come in and start paying taxes.

Here are some facts on which I would like the member's response.

The average Canadian family at the time of the next election will be paying $700 more in tax than when the government took office. That is a fact number one.

Spending over the next five years as a result of this budget will go up $2,800 for each and every Canadian. I have five children. My wife and I and our five children, assuming we are average Canadians, will pay $20,000 more in tax, which will be spent by the government. That is fact number two.

Canadians are worried about health care. The finance minister seems quite content to let the billions of dollars in boondoggle spending continue, such as what we have seen in HRDC, rather than putting a stop to it and putting the money into health care. That is fact number three.

There is a better option, which is Reform's solution 17. It would deliver $5,000 in tax relief for each family over the next five years, rather than this increase of $700 from the time the government took office. That is what we have to offer.

I would like the member, who made these wonderful statements, to comment on these facts.

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the member for Etobicoke North in his question to the Bloc member talked about the Bloc member not reading the budget. It is clear that the member for Etobicoke North did not read the budget. Had he read the budget he would know that the average Canadian family will still pay $700 more in taxes after five years when these tax cuts kick in than they did when the government took office. That is a fact, the $83 billion in increased spending. For my family, my wife and I and our five children, the government will spend $20,000 more of my family's money that we pay out in tax. That is unacceptable.

My question for the Bloc member is on agriculture spending. I would like him to comment on the fact that $240 million of federal money will go to farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and none will go to any other province.