Peter MacKay

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 411

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Notwithstanding anything aforementioned in this Act, this legislation shall not be construed in a manner which would prevent the renewal of the federation.”

[Indian Affairs And Northern Development, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is so transparent, we can see right through her.

We know that there is systemic mismanagement present in other government departments, such as CIDA and now Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In 1971 the Prime Minister was the minister of Indian affairs and he stated:

—we cannot spend millions of dollars without developing some criteria and rules for the administration of those moneys.

And yet, in an audit released while parliament was not sitting, as expected, why is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development still doling out money to native chiefs if they are refusing to account for their spending?

[Human Resources Development, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for months questions concerning the unprecedented mismanagement of millions of taxpayer dollars have gone unanswered in the House. The minister and Prime Minister have taken pains to minimize the enormous case of fiscal irresponsibility.

Almost daily now we have been advised of more RCMP investigations. We know of at least 19 grants now currently under investigation, three in the Prime Minister's riding, and one where charges have been laid.

Will the minister now restore some faith in her department by disclosing the full number of grants which she is aware of that are under investigation, active, completed or pending?

[Westray Mine, March 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Prior to the expiry of private members' hour I wish to advise the Chair that following consultations with my colleagues from all parties, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to defer the vote on Motion No. 79 until Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at the end of government orders.

[Privilege, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate your ruling as well as the good discretion exercised on the part of the government House leader to back off.

This question of privilege arises out of a matter the affects not only members of the House but those in the public who are watching very closely as Bill C-20 proceeds through the Chamber and eventually goes to the other place.

On the government website as of this morning the committee reports with respect to the progress of the legislative committee and the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence that were heard between the dates of February 14 and February 24, that short time allotted for the committee to contemplate Bill C-20, are shown as unavailable or not available to those who would be tracking the process of what was taking place in the committee.

There is a window on this world that occurs when the evidence is posted on that website. This window is essentially closed and the blinds are pulled. This technical line of communication is a very important and very symbolic site where the government and members of the opposition have the opportunity to communicate over the Internet and on the government website on what is taking place. It is a very important lifeline and form of communication.

This question of privilege concerns the ability of members of the House to review, to re-examine and to contemplate what has already taken place in committee with respect to this bill, which has been given a great deal of priority. There has been tremendous pomp and ceremony about the importance put forward by the government on Bill C-20 and yet to date, for some unknown, unexplained reason, this information is not available on this website.

We already discussed at length previously today and on other occasions the inability of the opposition or others in government, for that matter, to move amendments. Similarly I would say that this absence of information on the government website impacts on the ability of members of parliament and others to reflect on what has taken place already in this process.

Perhaps there is a good reason it is not available, but if it is part of the procedural ambush we have seen in the past I would suggest that it is improper and I would be prepared, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, if you find there is a prima facie breach of privilege, to move the necessary motion.

It is the Canadian public and all members of parliament who are affected by the absence on the website.

[Privilege, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I must add to earlier comments that we appreciate the indulgence and the wisdom displayed by the Chair in hearing this point of privilege because it is an extremely important matter for all members of the House.

Motion No. 8 brings about a very dark era for the remainder of this parliament should it pass. I realize that the Chair has directed members to speak specifically to the potential threat, the threat of intimidation that arises as a result of this motion even sitting on the order paper.

I would suggest that the motion, by virtue of its being tabled and resting before the House, even being held in abeyance, threatens to impale democracy and to impale the good workings of this Chamber.

This House is the place for the people of Canada to speak and for the people of Canada to be represented by their elected officials. By virtue of changing the rules of engagement, by virtue of the very intent of this motion, having this motion waiting, holding it over us like the sword of Damocles ready to descend, impugns the ability of members of parliament to do their work on behalf of their constituents.

This is a very provocative attempt by the government in response, I might add, to a very specific situation. Obviously this is aimed at one piece of legislation and one party.

Mr. Speaker, you as a member of the House but, more importantly, as the individual who presides over this House as a judge would preside over a court, should be blind, armed with a sword and armed with the scales of justice.

The motion asks you, Mr. Speaker, to remove the blindfold and use the sword. That is what the motion seeks to have you do, which, as has been alluded to earlier, undermines your ability and your credibility within this process. This would impugn the impartiality of the Chair and remove the non-partisan nature of the office that you hold.

In this House we are to respond and conduct ourselves with impartiality and fairness. The motion, without a doubt, is aimed at removing those boundaries, removing our ability to interact on a fair and even playing field.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are a fan of the sport of hockey. What the motion would do—and we are playing short-handed as it is—is essentially turn the government's net around and remove the blue line. It changes the rules by which we play the game. It changes the way we conduct ourselves here.

I want to speak specifically to the issue of intimidation. I refer the Chair to Erskine May, 22nd edition. I would also note quite importantly that this is British procedure, the basis on which the government is now relying on for Motion No. 8. On page 121 of Erskine May, 22nd edition, under the chapter headed “Obstructing Members of Either House in the Discharge of Their Duty”, I will read from a paragraph half way down the page. It states:

The House will proceed against those who obstruct Members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings.

Turning to page 123, I will refer to the last paragraph on that page. It states:

To attempt to intimidate a Member in his (or her) parliamentary conduct by threats is also a contempt, cognate to those mentioned above.

Actions of this character which have been proceeded against include impugning the conduct of Members and threatening them with further exposure if they took part in debates;

Finally, on page 124 of the same edition, under “Improper influence”, it states:

Attempts by improper means to influence Members in their parliamentary conduct may be considered contempts.

This motion and those actions which would flow from this motion intimidate members of the House. This motion, by virtue of sitting on the order paper ready to be used at some near future date in response to a specific bill in the House, as has been alluded to, having this hang over us undermines our ability to carry out our parliamentary duties. It hinders the Chair and all members on both sides of the House.

It would be much easier if the government in its wisdom would agree now to withdraw the motion and, as was suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, go back to the way we used to conduct ourselves here, to sit down, co-operate and try to work together in some fashion to come to a reasonable solution as opposed to the bullying tactics that have been displayed by the government House leader.

Mr. Speaker, the motion not only sullies your office but, I would suggest, it sullies the entire process and sullies and damages all members of the Chamber.

Canadians will be watching to see how this occurs because a significant number of them still have faith in this process, as they should. However, in order for that process to be reinforced and for Canadians to continue to have faith, we must now deal with a situation that has arisen. It has arisen as a result of a provocative attempt by the government House leader to somehow intimidate and put members off their ability to conduct themselves in the normal fashion.

I am not overstating the case when I say that the government is now, by virtue of the motion, standing in the House with a knife to the throat of the opposition. It has said to the opposition members that if we do not back off with our intentions it will change the rules under which we play and it will somehow undermine the process by which we have been playing and conducting ourselves over the past number of years. The government must be disarmed.

I strongly urge the Chair to exercise its discretion, to exercise the tools of office with which it is empowered. By removing the motion from the order paper, we will then be able to fall back on the processes and the normal rules of engagement to which we are accustomed.

The government should withdraw the motion and once again, I would suggest, the spirit of co-operation and consultation could then flourish.

We have been told, and the Chair would obviously be aware of this by virtue of having reviewed the motion, that we will now face a situation where we have two classes of members. We know that the cabinet and the executive will be given certain powers and specific entitlements. However, in this Chamber, I, as a young, new member of the House, was led to believe that we were all equals. When we set foot in this sacred, hallowed Chamber we were to be treated equally and fairly by the Chair and by one another with mutual respect for the purposes of the smooth workings of parliament. This motion changes that. It changes the class structure. It changes the equity that is supposed to exist and pertain and reflect on all members.

This is an attempt, I would suggest, a last desperate and despotic attempt to bankrupt the administration and the smooth workings of the House. We have been working within these rules, albeit there are certainly times when there should be change and certainly occasions when we should all participate in a positive fashion to try to improve the workings of parliament not denigrate them nor remove or impinge on the ability of members of parliament to do do their work, but to improve and ameliorate the ability of members of the House to act. This is a step backwards. This is an attempt to return to an age when all of the power was centralized in the hands of but a few. I suggest that it would be a very dark day and a very sad day if we are to allow this to happen.

Independence and impartiality are what the Chair is empowered with, and those are very much the cornerstones of the workings of the House. The Chair's ability now is the last bastion of our ability to appeal for fairness. Changing these rules is anything but fair and anything but equitable.

I would suggest that this motion is very much an attempt to intimidate members of the House. It is very much an attempt to limit our ability to participate in an open fashion in the debates. It is not only debates that take place here, as we know. This motion very much touches upon the ability to work at committee.

I am sad to report that I believe for the most part Canadians do not understand the amount of hard work and the amount of positive work that is done at the committee level because it is done behind closed doors.

We know very much with reference to Bill C-20, which I think again is the specific root cause of what we see happening before us today, that the work that can be done at committee is very much curtailed. Even more than the work that takes place here in this public and open fashion, the work that is done at committee is the real, the substantive and the very important sustenance of what takes place in terms of the preparation of legislation and the presentation of new ideas, new laws and changes to our entire workings.

If we allow this motion to sit on the order paper, to continue to be a knife at the throat of members of parliament, we will not be able to move forward to make positive changes.

Again I implore and ask the Chair to take into consideration the words of all members of the House. I would expect that we would hear from the government on this particular point of privilege. Again I would suggest that by the very virtue of this motion sitting before us, pointed directly at us like a gun at our heads, the government is saying “If you do not comply, if you do not participate in the way we want you to, we will pull the trigger”.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking you, as members of the opposition, to remove that threat, to take that threat away, to disarm the government and allow us to get on with the work that Canadians expect from this Chamber.

[Export Development Corporation, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few basics the minister should keep in mind. For example, René Fugère is under criminal investigation by the RCMP. Neither Mr. Fugère nor Mr. Champagne has registered under the Lobbyists Registration Act.

My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Why is his department even dealing with these individuals? For the sake of the integrity of the system and of saving taxpayer money, will the minister suspend this loan until we get to the bottom of this, until the air has cleared?

[Export Development Corporation, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that wherever the Prime Minister's good friends René Fugère and Gilles Champagne go taxpayer money is sure to follow.

Would the Minister for International Trade please explain how the addition of these two individuals to the board of directors of Earth Canada suddenly qualified that company for a $10 million credit? And, would the minister tell us what matters most here? Is it qualifications or friendship to the Prime Minister?

[Points Of Order, March 2nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last night the government gave notice under Motion No. 8 that it would be embarking on an unprecedented attack on democracy in this place. I do not wish to eat into the time of the NDP on their opposition day, but this is an outrageous act on behalf of the government. It is shutting down debate not only in the House but in committees.

The Speaker himself or herself, by virtue of this move, will be brought into the fray and be asked to participate and rule on amendments that may be brought forward in the House. This will limit debate. This is an attack on the use of committees in terms of their reports being brought forward and the ability to file amendments will be severely curtailed.

It creates two classes of members in this place: special privileges that can be afforded to members who are cabinet ministers versus those who are not.

The tools of parliament will be circumvented by virtue of this motion that has been brought forward and notice given by the government House leader.

With respect to this matter, we would respectfully put forward that the Speaker should rule on the privileges of the members of the House who have been severely undermined by virtue of the government House leader in his attempts to shut down all opposition.

We know that the official opposition was given an opportunity under the Nisga'a debate to exercise a certain amount of privilege, and yet what we have seen is another party in the House being severely limited in its ability to do the exact same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you consider this unprecedented attack that has been embarked upon by the government House leader. This is, I would suggest, severely infringing on the ability of members of parliament to do their work in this place, to do their work on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of all Canadians in ways that are unprecedented. They are limited on very important pieces of legislation that affect everyone in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider Motion No. 8 before this is brought to the House for a vote. I would ask the Speaker to rule as to whether this motion is in fact in order at all, because this puts the Chair, you, Mr. Speaker in a position where, as a referee, you are being asked to put on the government team's jersey and play for that side. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this curtails your credibility and your ability to do your impartial work in this place.

These motions being brought forward, five in total under Motion No. 8 under government business today, once again severely undermines the ability of this place to operate in a coherent, fair and equitable fashion.

[Human Resources Development, March 1st, 2000]

It must be selective memory, Mr. Speaker, because on February 9 the Prime Minister stated that only $251.50 was problematic. Yet six months ago the RCMP began an investigation into PLI Environmental and its $1.6 million grant and wage subsidies package from HRDC.

How in good faith and good conscience could the Prime Minister stand in the House and tell Canadians that only $251.50 was questionable when six months previous he knew the RCMP were already investigating a potential fraud of millions of dollars?