Peter MacKay

[Firearms Registry, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the Auditor General's scathing report on his department's handling of the firearms registry, the Minister of Justice has hired KPMG to audit the department's financial statements.

We know the Auditor General must report to Parliament. We know that no such requirement exists for a private firm. Other than the opportunity to hide the report from Parliament, is there any reason why the minister chose KPMG over the Auditor General? Does he think a private firm will be any more successful at getting to the bottom of the mess than the Auditor General?

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to rise and follow my colleague from St. John's, who I think has given an important history lesson with respect to how we got to where we are today.

The importance and the timing of the motion could not be better. I want to similarly congratulate my colleagues in the Bloc for having brought forward the motion. What it deals with is certainly the obligation that the federal government has to fund health care but as well the responsibility it has to respect the provinces' role in administering it, which is of course something that continues to escape most members, including the member opposite who is chirping right now.

The administration of health care within the Canada Health Act is certainly what Canadians benefit from collectively. Canadians expect and deserve to have the issue of health care financing addressed. The problem is that ever since the federal government slashed transfer payments to the provinces in 1995 those provinces have been frantically struggling to keep up with the growing demands of health care.

Health care now commands 54% of the entire provincial budget of Prince Edward Island and 47% of all program spending here in the province of Ontario. It is not an exaggeration to say that health care spending is crowding out the provinces' ability to focus on other issues such as income support, social services and housing. We see provinces struggling to keep their financial heads above water and they face the real possibility that some may fall back into deficit if the health care financing issue is not resolved.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, I am very proud to say that the Progressive Conservative government led by Premier John Hamm has balanced the budget, for the first time in 40 years. The government has had to make some very tough decisions, obviously, but it was backed into that corner by the fact that this federal Liberal government has been choking off the provinces by cuts to transfer payments.

The issue of fiscal imbalance is being quite hotly debated among economists. Let me quote from the caledon commentary from this past summer. Joe Ruggeri, of the University of New Brunswick, stated:

...if cost pressures in health care spending are moderate and CHST cash payments increase in line with the growth of nominal GDP, the provinces and territories as a group would experience potential surpluses in the future, but much smaller than federal surpluses.

There is not much encouragement for provincial finance ministers in this forecast, because this is really what I would describe as a best case scenario. It is based on health care cost pressures being moderate. We already know that this simply is not the case in most, if not all, provinces. In a number of areas such as drug costs, nursing care and home care, we have seen phenomenal increases in costs, and that is before we address the demographic challenges of an aging population.

My colleague from St. John's also referred to the very significant issue of out-migration from rural Canada, particularly in Atlantic provinces, I would suggest,and in fairness, in all provinces.

In my constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in Nova Scotia, hospitals, like all those in rural Canada, are under extreme pressure and strain. The Guysborough hospital, St. Martha's Regional Hospital in Antigonish and the Aberdeen Hospital are being completely put under the gun to try to provide basic health care services. They are doing their best by being innovative and original and in many cases just simply making do.

The other question that is still not being addressed by the federal government is the shortfall from the federal cutbacks of 1995, which was not restored in 2000. The impact of that shortfall continues to be felt by the provinces and is the very reason that they are feeling the pressures that we see in the health care system today, pressures that are being experienced nationwide.

My point here is that it is really difficult to address other significant social policy issues when these larger issues of health care financing and the fiscal imbalance between a federal and a provincial government are outstanding.

There were some very important points made in the Romanow report and it is a welcome addition to the national debate. The ability to quarterback and in some ways implement some of the recommendations is now clearly in the lap of the federal government. Its ability to do so is something that we in opposition, and I suspect many in the country, question, because of the proposed reforms requiring tight cooperation with the provinces and the ability of the federal government itself to help coordinate that effort, and knowing that it is really the architect of the disaster and that the health care crisis is a net result of the $25 billion that was taken out of the CHST.

It becomes a question of credibility. It becomes a clear question of how can we expect the federal government to play its important coordinating role as the cash cow, as the source of funding, when it is in essence the architect of this. The government is the one that has put the provinces in this position. Therefore it lacks credibility. It lacks any significant ability to rally around with the provinces. It is tantamount to a pyromaniac coming into a person's living room, setting a fire and then saying that he will call the fire department.

To come back to the important issue here, the clear intention of Mr. Romanow's report is to look at the health care issue. It was an engaging exercise. It was something that Canadians certainly took part in. There were 25 million hits, as I understand it, on Mr. Romanow's website, coupled with the significant effort to travel and consult. It cost $15 million. We can put aside the issue of how many MRI machines that could buy or how that money might have been spent on health care. Yet many of Mr. Romanow's recommendations touched on the area of provincial jurisdiction, which is the focus of the Bloc motion.

There is a focus as well on the need for a strategy and the need for an allotment of money for specific areas. What we saw in other reports like the Kirby-LeBreton report that originated in the Senate and the Mazankowski report was a significant addition and contribution to this debate. What those other reports did that the Romanow commission report does not is they left open the issue of public funding of health care being enhanced by private sector participation by buttressing the public health care system, of course always done within the principles of the Canada Health Act. We will be watching what the current government does with the recommendations of all of these reports.

The constitutional division of powers must always be respected. The provinces have already balked at the issue of strings being attached. We are open to the idea of redefining and clarifying the principles of the Canada Health Act. We will closely scrutinize details of the definitions put to Parliament by the government.

As for the subject of the motion before us today, there is no disagreement from us about the fact that the current federal government is not doing its share in health care funding. We absolutely agree with the call for stable federal funding. During the 2000 election campaign my party proposed to add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act, that is, one of stable funding for health care. We see now that the government is contemplating doing this. We know it is not opposed to poaching ideas; it has made a living out of doing that.

Our colleagues in the other place recently released the latest chapter in their study on the state of our health care system. Their conclusions, presented simply and straightforwardly, were that we need funding and structure. The health care system is not sustainable. If funding problems are not addressed and if serious reforms are not implemented, the system will continue to fail Canadians.

Our colleagues did not stop there. Rather than dance around the difficult issues, they have provided the government with concrete options to save our health care system, something that I would suggest is lacking in the Romanow report.

When it comes to the question of funding and the tool of funding, we are quite prepared to consider unbundling the CHST in the interests of transparency and accountability.

Finally, we do not object to a pan-Canadian agreement which includes provincial jurisdictions which are negotiated by the provinces and not dictated to by Ottawa.

We cannot emphasize enough that without stable funding, all of the other principles of the Canada Health Act are undermined.

[Privilege, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, just with respect to the point of order that seems to be raised in addition to the point of privilege, I want to just buttress the references that have been made with respect to Beauchesne's at page 204, section 686(2), and Erskine May, 22nd edition at page 516, wherein there is a discussion and full commentary on the division of bills.

However the important point to be made and underlined here is that the division of bills which is contemplated by both of those learned publications and the precedent they discuss deal specifically and presupposes that the originator of the bill, that is either the House of Commons or the Senate, is the chamber in which the effort is being made or put forward to divide that bill.

It does not contemplate that another chamber would undertake to divide that bill, so the precedent that is there, the publications which speak to this issue, presupposes that it is in fact the originator of the bill that is in the effort of dividing it.

[Privilege, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to try to enlighten such an illustrious student of parliamentary practice, but modeling myself after you, I did spend a significant amount of time, not the entire evening, looking at this issue.

I would submit respectfully to the Chair that there are elements of a request for money in both A and B. However the issue before the House is the splitting and the bringing to the House on two separate occasions, because we can certainly presume that some time henceforth we will be receiving Bill C-10B, that this in and of itself indicates that there is a clear attempt here to distinguish two separate and distinct pieces of legislation, both requiring a royal recommendation, both requiring additional funds.

There is clearly an attachment of funds when one examines the purpose of the firearms legislation. Similarly any implementation of changes to the Criminal Code could rightly be construed as requiring additional funding for the implementation, the education and the administration by the provinces as it pertains to the enforcement of Criminal Code provisions.

I read with great care the message that was received here. It is seeking concurrence, but I believe the other place is seeking concurrence for something it knows it cannot do. We know, and I state uncategorically, that the Minister of Justice took up residence in the other place and watched with great interest to see if this ruse could occur and then scurried off to the Senate committee to see if this could be perpetuated on an unsuspecting Senate.

Let us not be complicit in this exercise. I put to the Chair that the Chair has a responsibility to protect the privileges of all members, to protect the privileges through us of all Canadians who are being completed bamboozled by the government in its effort to further jam down their throats this unprecedented boondoggle of a gun registry that will not work.

[Privilege, December 5th, 2002]

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will come to the point. The point is that what is going on here is that we need independent legal advice with respect to what has occurred. The independent legal advice for the House of Commons will, I suggest, contemplate that there is a contempt that has occurred here in a committee, to a committee. Let the committees have a serious look at what has happened in the House of Commons to initiate all money bills and secure independent constitutional legal advice on the propriety of the actions of the Senate.

I want to quote the opposition leader in the other place, the hon. Senator Lynch-Staunton, who spoke on this issue before the other place.

My preoccupation is with the tearing up of a bill that has come to us from the House of Commons for study and, hopefully, support and agreement, and bringing to this chamber what is now identified as a new bill covering only part of the original Bill C-10.

The government House leader is telling us that the House should have great faith in him and the Department of Justice, but I ask the Chair to recognize that there is a clear conflict of interest. The Department of Justice wants this legislation. The Minister of Justice wants this legislation. The government and the Prime Minister clearly want the legislation.

It is time for the government to put its interests behind the interests of the House of Commons, or is this another way that the government House leader is looking at modernizing Parliament? Will we have the Senate carve up omnibus bills after elected members of the House of Commons have taken heat from the electorate for their comprised votes on the omnibus bills?

In brief, the Senate has authored what it says is a House of Commons bill with a new title and which spends money. That is the result. That is a clear breach of privilege as was stated by Speaker Fraser in his ruling on July 11, 1988. The Chair has already received significant commentary on that particular ruling. I would suggest that ruling, in essence, is a precedent that did not happen. The Senate in essence retreated on that particular occasion and can be clearly distinguished from the issue before the House.

That is but one factor. There is also another ruling referred to by the parliamentary secretary that occurred on April 26, 1990. He also referred to a 1997 position, wherein he is essentially saying, “Well, we have done this before so it must be okay”.

All of those situations can be clearly distinguished. I am contending that by tendering a document as a C bill, Bill C-10A, and by voting on that bill in the Senate as if it were a House of Commons bill, the Senate is in contempt of the House. By the use of the royal recommendation that was signed by Her Excellency only for Bill C-10, there is a significant prima facie case and there is significant evidence of a contempt of the House.

I contend that this matter should be referred to a committee for examination and for the commissioning of an independent constitutional opinion. I believe there is also a serious question to be resolved over the misuse, and potential fraudulent use, of the Governor General's royal recommendation and that Her Excellency may want to ask some hard questions of her own ministers.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there are remedies available to you and that you may rule this particular bill and the practice that has been attempted to be out of order. As I indicated to you, I am prepared to move a motion should you find in my favour on this point.

[Privilege, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I must express my dismay for the order in which we dealt with this. As the Chair would know, a question of privilege trumps a point of order. I gave notice to the Chair of this question of privilege yesterday.

In any event, I hope to present to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, a cogent and coherent argument which I believe will be compelling and will cause the Speaker to act in such a way that Bill C-10 will not proceed further through the House in this form. The natural result of this would be to save Canadians further expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars and arguably give law-abiding citizens potential criminal records if the bill were to pass. Quite briefly, this question of privilege, I suggest, should prevent the further passage of Bill C-10.

The arguments presented by the parliamentary secretary suggest that there is a precedent for what is about to occur. He went on to say that the precedent is not really a precedent because we declare it is not. In essence, we are being presented with a nonsensical argument. This is tantamount to pouring whisky into a jar of milk and then attempting to strain it out. If the precedent is there, it is there. He is asking the House to accept that we can waive our privileges somehow.

What that would do in terms of legislation in presenting new powers to the Senate that do not exist is say that we will just acquiesce and give it those powers. We would say to those who seek to rob us, “Please come in our house. We will go away while you help yourself to the cutlery”.

In the Journals yesterday there was a recorded message from the Senate concerning Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and the Firearms Act). The message, Mr. Speaker, that you have before you, and I will not read it in its entirety, essentially asks for concurrence, something I suggest that the Liberal dominated Senate knows it cannot do. There is no explanation and no reasons given; it is simply asking that this House concur in what it is attempting to do.

This indicates the Senate has taken upon itself to tamper with a House of Commons bill, a bill which carries the royal recommendation and which also is what is generally described as an omnibus bill. Mr. Speaker, you would have a copy of that. On that bill I note on the last page it says, “Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons”, which makes the Speaker complicit in what the Senate is trying to do.

I first want to say that this message may well represent a sea change to the way in which omnibus bills are considered by Parliament. The precedent cited can only destroy and diminish previous precedents. I suggest quite strongly that any precedent that has been cited already can clearly be distinguished. We gave third reading to something similar to Bill C-10A, but it is completely different, of course.

I ask the Speaker in his consideration of this question of privilege to focus on the form of the bill. My argument is premised on the fact that the action taken by the Liberal dominated Senate is unprecedented, extraparliamentary and a power grab that will result in a bill that is not in its proper form and therefore a bill not properly before Parliament.

If the government is prepared to have unelected senators dismantle omnibus bills, I think it will have a significant rebellion on its hands with respect to the way the House is being asked to approve omnibus legislation. I for one, and I suspect a large number of those sitting on the government side, will not be content to tell our electors that we had to vote for an omnibus bill because of some of the provisions in the bill and then watch the senators cherry-pick the provisions of the same bill.

Let us be clear. What is about to happen is a huge shift in power toward the Senate. None of the senators will have to explain their actions to the voters. There is no precedent for this to occur. It goes beyond the constitution of the Senate. It also offends the notion of the relationship between the two chambers, which would offset the current balance. The other place, I am suggesting strongly, is exceeding its powers. We cannot therefore waive our privilege in this regard.

Let me state something immediately before proceeding with this question of privilege.

Bill C-10 was sent to the Senate. Printed on it was the text of the recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General. It was a bill originating in the House of Commons, as it must do because it is a money bill.

Bill C-10 incidentally was a portion of Bill C-15 in the last Parliament and similarly resulted in a splitting of the bill after much pressure from the opposition. It died on the Order Paper after prorogation. It died in the Senate.

The bill is now numbered C-10 because it is a House of Commons bill. The Senate message says that it has divided the bill. However, Mr. Speaker, what I strongly urge you to accept is that is not the case. What the Senate has done, I believe, is more than divide the bill. It has rewritten the bill.

I ask the Speaker again, respectfully, to review the precedence with respect to the form of a bill. The Speaker will find that the form of a bill is set out in Beauchesne's sixth edition at section 626. It cites, among other things, the title, the preamble, the enacting clause, the clauses, the schedules, explanatory notes and so on.

Mr. Speaker, you will note that Bill C-10A as it now appears has a different title. It has in fact different numbers attached to the clauses of the bill.

The document sent to us by the Senate contains appendix A and appendix B; two bills with new titles. These are new bills created and written by the Senate. They may contain similar language to part of Bill C-10, but make no mistake, what we have before us are two new bills. I should clarify that we have part of two new bills; one remains of course in the other place.

The Senate message indicates that notwithstanding the fact that it has returned Bill C-10 to the House, it is continuing to examine what it is now calling Bill C-10B. What is at work is one portion, dealing with firearms, is running out of time because of the incompetence and poor planning of the government. The other portion is remaining before the Senate because there is still contention, even among Liberal backbenchers and members of both Houses. That is an attempt to make this entire situation more palatable.

I readily admit that the Senate has the right to send to the House bills that originate there, that is, in the Senate. Bills may be written by senators, either in the form of private members' bills or simply S bills. The House receives those bills regularly. Senate bills carry the prefix S to designate their house of origin. It is clear from the Constitution that Senate bills, S bills, cannot, and I underline cannot, be money bills.

I contend that by drafting something that the Senate calls Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B and by telling the House that it is continuing to examine Bill C-10B, the Senate is attempting to create something that only this House can create, namely a C bill. By doing that, it has committed a constructive contempt of the House. We in the House do not create a bill in the House and advertise it as a Senate bill. As the old saying goes, “What is good for the goose is sauce for the gander”.

Without quoting extensively from the standing orders, I refer to Standing Order 80, which states:

All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct--

Note that it states “the sole gift”. Mr. Speaker, I refer you as well to the Constitution Act, 1867 wherein it speaks of appropriation and tax bills. Section 53 states:

Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax or impost--

I underline for emphasis:

--shall originate in the House of Commons.

What the Senate has done is to take part of the text of the House of Commons bill, a C bill, chop it up, alter the text of the bill, paste on it what it purports to be a royal recommendation that was signed by the Governor General only in relation to Bill C-10, and send that fraudulent bill in through the back door of the House of Commons, pretending that it is a Commons bill. The Senate sent it with a little note that says, “Hey, let's make a deal. By the way, we are now writing money bills in order to expedite the wishes of the Minister of Justice who will be prepared to say that everything is okay and in accordance with the Constitution”.

We learned yesterday just how far Parliament can depend on the Minister of Justice. It is very shabby, tricky behaviour I suggest. We cannot condone this activity that flagrantly flouts the rules of this place simply because the Minister of Justice now has his toe in the wringer. The Minister of Justice should be the embodiment of justice with respect for the rule of law and an ardent protector of the strict compliance with the rules of this chamber.

I want the House to be able to have independent legal advice concerning the propriety and constitutionality of the proposed actions of the Senate. As it stands, the Department of Justice, and the Minister of Justice as the chief law officer of the Crown, stand condemned by the Auditor General of Canada. Parliament has no reason to trust the advice coming from the Minister of Justice. He and his department are caught in an undeclared conflict of interest.

[Criminal Code, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this very important bill. I listened to the comments of my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois member. However, my position is quite different from his.

I understand completely what my hon. friend is saying about the jurisdictional aspects of this legislation. However I believe that the intent of the mover of the motion, my colleague from the Alliance Party, is truly about the protection of animals and to enhance the Criminal Code to send a deterrent message for those who continually flaunt the laws for their personal gain and for the financial gain which can result in many cases from the killing of these rare and beautiful animals. She spoke of many of those, the bighorn goats and sheep in the Rocky Mountains, the grizzly bears, many of them endangered species.

This is clearly a bill that is very much coming from the heart from this hon. member. I congratulate her for her persistence in continuing to bring this issue before Parliament.

It is very important to increase our country's awareness of this issue.

This issue is meant I am sure to work with and to enhance provincial legislation as alluded to by my colleague from Charlevoix. The issue is one in which all Canadians can agree, can rally around and can unify in the cause of protecting animals.

We have seen sadly few initiatives from the government side of this subject matter. We have seen few genuine efforts to enhance and to protect the very valuable wildlife of which we share this beautiful land.

I again want to express the support of the Progressive Conservative Party for this initiative. I believe the intention is to put in place a further deterrent to buttress in effect the current provisions of the Criminal Code. By buttress I mean send a message that there is a cost associated with the criminal justice system to contravening the laws as they pertain currently to animals and the protection of animals.

Wild animals, and I believe the mover of the motion would agree, are in a particularly unique position in this expansive, vast country of ours. Certainly there are areas where urban sprawl is impacting on the natural habitat of animals. Increasingly humans are coming in contact with wild animals in their natural habitat.

There is a need to remind Canadians of an obligation to interact and to not prey upon this species, our wildlife, and not to do so in a way that is meant clearly to bring forward financial gain. We know that there are many hunters and trappers in the country who do so extremely responsibly.

It hearkens back to another time when this was a more wild country and people relied on wildlife for subsistence. People relied on their ability, their skill and their prowess at hunting, trapping and fishing. Yet what we have seen sadly in some instances are individuals who engage in the activity of hunting and trapping for pure fiscal and financial gain and greed in may instances.

The delicate balance that has to exist between man and animal can often be upset because of this greed. It is certainly not particular to this country. We have seen many instances around the world where some of the most beautiful species are endangered. In fact some species have been lost.

Clearly the intent of the mover of the motion from British Columbia is to bring forward a genuine and very direct effort to enhance and protect that species, to allow for the criminal justice system to intervene with serious consequences when that occurs and to send the message that the Parliament of Canada is interested that the criminal justice system will respond and will response with serious consequences through our laws in Canada.

Again I extend my congratulations to the mover of the motion. I would similarly express the hope that all members of Parliament will support this very worthwhile motion.

[Request for Emergency Debate, December 4th, 2002]

Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker. I will go directly to the quotations of relevance. The Auditor General said, “Even though the department has many explanations for this ballooning of costs”--this is the underlying part--“it never shared any of them with Parliament”. The Auditor General went on to say, “What is really inexcusable is that Parliament was in the dark”.

In botanical bureaucratic terms, this means that it was like mushrooms on a manure pile, the strategy in short being that it grows until somebody notices the smell.

Tomorrow the House will be asked to approve more than $62 million in additional funds for the gun registry, a program that is already estimated to be in the range of $1 billion. The government has failed to justify in any way this raid on the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada. The minister has yet to come before the House to justify this additional spending.

An emergency debate, I suggest to the Chair, is the only vehicle left for the House of Commons to hear an explanation on this issue. The minister has not made a ministerial statement. The time for committee examination and supplementary estimates is over. They have been returned to the floor of the House. The government has no initiatives or mechanisms in the House to shine light on this $1 billion mismanagement of public funds.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you order this debate to take place so the House can be fully informed of the situation through a full debate before we pour millions more into this $1 billion cesspool. Canadians need to know why Parliament was kept in the dark and where the money is going. The Chair obviously knows the criteria for this type of debate. To do anything less, I would suggest, is to ratify the grossly improper actions of the Department of Justice.

[Request for Emergency Debate, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to the Chair with respect to this request.

My request arises from the Auditor General's report yesterday in which the Auditor General gave the House a damning report on the abuse of Parliament and the taxpayers of Canada by officials of the Department of Justice in their incompetent handling of the gun registry program.

I will quote directly from chapter 10 of the December 2002 report of the Auditor General of Canada. That chapter deals directly with the Department of Justice costs of implementing the Canadian firearms registry. The Auditor General said:

Accountable government requires that the members of Parliament be able to approve the government's plans for spending and scrutinize the results of that spending. To do this properly, Parliament needs sufficient information about costs and expected results.

[Petitions, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present on behalf of constituents and Nova Scotians a petition to the House of Commons with respect to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who suffer from debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy, spinal cord injury and others. The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses suffered by these Canadians. I table this on behalf of individuals from Antigonish, Old South River and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.