The Liberals made a number of solemn promises to eliminate the GST. Yesterday, however, not only did the Minister of Finance announce that the GST was being kept, he went on to say that we were going to pay $1 billion to extend it to the Maritimes.
How does the Prime Minister justify such a spectacular about-face?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, we can see what is going on in the Government of Quebec, where the mother house is making major changes to the Parti Quebecois program as it stood at election time. I just make this comment in passing.
I would simply like to read what is in the red book, the document our election campaign was based on. Here is what appears on page 22 of the English and on page 20 of the French:
A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates the equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.This is exactly what we have begun to do. We have succeeded in doing it with three Atlantic provinces and are negotiating with the others. Quebec was even ahead of the others. It understood the advantage of harmonization. We will finish the job with Quebec and we hope the other provinces will understand that a unified sales tax system in Canada is much simpler for everyone and much more effective.
We made it clear in the red book that we could not abolish a tax without equivalent revenues, because the priority of all governments at the moment, in Ottawa, Quebec City, Toronto or elsewhere, is to eliminate deficits, which have been a source of economic problems throughout Canada, in Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada is becoming a specialist in post-election program changes. The changes should have been made before.
As the Minister of Finance acknowledged yesterday, it was a mistake to promise to eliminate the GST and not do so. Is the government not making a second and very serious political mistake by developing another harmonization model, different from the one already in place with Quebec, which had the advantage of not costing Canadian taxpayers a thing.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now the Bloc Quebecois is asking us to be inflexible, to give the exact same thing to everyone. Because it is complex, we are looking with the provinces for a solution that is acceptable and fair to everyone.
I hear the leader of the Bloc Quebecois saying we are changing our program; we are not changing our program. I just read our program. But we will see on Monday whether the leader of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City has changed the Parti's program on Bill 101.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister in such a tight spot in this House that he has to try to draw attention away from commitments he made and did not keep? It was right there on the TV screen yesterday: the Prime Minister in shirt sleeves before Liberal supporters making commitments to scrap the GST. What about the Deputy Prime
Minister who was going to resign if the GST were not eliminated. Where is she now?
How can the Prime Minister explain to Quebecers that, really, they have not been taken in again by the federal government, when, despite their good faith and their being the first to harmonize their sales tax with the federal tax, they did not get the compensation the Maritimers got.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not read what I read earlier again; it is in the red book. It was very clear, and we are keeping the promise we made in the red book.
The Bloc Quebecois told Quebecers to vote for the real power. They are in opposition and they will be there for a long time to come. Their cousins in Quebec City are today changing, for political gain, the political program Mr. Parizeau used to get himself elected.
They are the last people to talk to me about not keeping my word. I have it in writing, and I-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: I would remind hon. members please to not use any props in the House of Commons.
Since this memo was directly addressed to Mr. Boyle, how can the minister justify that it was not handed over to the commission of inquiry at the very beginning and that, in order to obtain it, it was necessary to mobilize the entire army in an unprecedented search? How does the minister explain that?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Shefford on the death of former General Jean Victor Allard. He was a man of great distinction who served Canada well. He was the first French-Canadian chief of defence in our history. He was a great man.
[English]
Concerning the question of the hon. member for Charlesbourg, he knows I have been giving the same answer to that question for two weeks. I have answered the question for two weeks because that is what Canadians expect to hear.
They expect to hear that the commission that was established by this government, an impartial setting, will look at all of the allegations which have come forward.
The hon. member should have paid attention to the comments made by the counsel for the commission this morning who at the hearings warned Canadians not to be misled by partial evidence, not to jump to conclusions, but to allow the commission to come to its deliberations and answers in the fullness of time.
(1425)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions the minister has replied that we must wait, but now we have the proof that the chief of defence staff did not carry out his duties.
With this new cover-up, which severely undermines the chief of defence staff's credibility and by extension that of the entire armed forces, what more is the minister waiting for to suspend him temporarily from his duties, so that we can get to the bottom of this business once and for all?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for the process of justice to take its course. The process of justice established by the creation of the commission will allow all of the allegations and all of the questions to be answered over the next few weeks. It will allow those people who have been accused in a public forum, in the House of Commons, to have an opportunity to state their case. That is the way we do justice in Canada and I believe all Canadians support that.
They have delivered, a billion dollar bribe to hide the GST and hide their broken promises. The Prime Minister has gone back on his solemn word to Canadians and the finance minister simply said yesterday: ``We made a mistake in the last election campaign''.
The Prime Minister can wave the red book all he wants, but the question to be answered is this. Will he apologize to Canadians for breaking his number one promise of the 1993 election?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1990 during the byelection in the riding of the hon. member, in order to get her elected, her leader of the day who is in the House today, called for the election of a Reform Party candidate who would rip the GST right out if it was imposed against the will of the people.
In 1991 it was not the same. If Reformers were to form the government they could not repeal it. They would have to wait until they had a balanced budget. In 1992 he said something else and in 1994 in a report tabled in the House of Commons the members of the Reform Party complimented the Minister of Finance for the harmonization of the tax with the provincial governments.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was elected four months after the Tory government in the spring of 1989 and the GST had not even been talked about then. Nice try.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: Get the facts right and get the time right.
This government has shown its contempt for the Canadian people. It has shown complete disregard for the promises it made in the last election. It has destroyed whatever credibility the red book might have left. It just goes to show that the Liberals will say anything, do anything and believe anything to get elected.
The Prime Minister supported the GST when he ran for the Liberal leadership. He opposed it in the last election and then he supported it again now that he got Canadians' votes.
They can wave the red book all they like but can Canadians trust anything in the red book?
The Speaker: The red book is being used on both sides as a prop. I would ask please, do not use props in the House of Commons.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 75 per cent of the red book commitments have been passed by this government. The member even has a copy of the red book in her hand. We are still waiting for the alternative budget that they were supposed to prepare for the last budget.
I remember the leader of the third party telling Canadians: ``Ladies and gentlemen, we will have a budget to tell the Minister of Finance what to do''. We are still waiting. The budget has been voted on and we are waiting. Where are the people who made these commitments? They do not have to deliver. They just gave us a plan that they would never have to implement. There is no danger if they do not even have the guts to table a plan they will never have a chance to implement.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, nobody in western Canada can do a two step that fancy. This red book means nothing, absolutely nothing. It is a prop. It is a sham.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1430 )
Some hon. members: Sit down.
At a time when the Minister of Human Resources Development is in the process of cutting back unemployment insurance benefits by billions of dollars, thus creating poverty in the regions, why does he not withdraw this bill and use the available funds to help the needy unemployed in Quebec, in Acadia, in New Brunswick, and everywhere in Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is aware, he could not have asked the same question last year, for the UI fund had no surplus at that time. In fact, there was a deficit.
Obviously, changes in situations such as what has happened with the unemployment insurance fund must be taken into account. At the moment, however, what needs to be kept in mind is that the amendments made to the bill before the House at this time will result in improvements to situations that have been recognized as a result of presentations made by those interested in making fair changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The opposition's assistance in this would have been appreciated.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I could have asked the question last year because indeed there was a surplus, and I am sure I would have got the same reply. We have finally got the minister's message. He is cutting $45 million from manpower training courses in Quebec, while the UI fund accumulates billions in surplus funds.
When the minister says he is pulling out of manpower training and leaving it to the provinces, that means he is no longer putting any funds into it, but he will continue to impose his centralizing views on us, and to duplicate programs already in place in Quebec.
Is that what federal withdrawal is all about: continuing involvement in manpower, but cutting off funding to the provinces?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, we have been asked many times to withdraw from manpower training in a number of provinces, including Quebec. We have made the commitment, reiterated by the Prime Minister and confirmed in the throne speech, to withdraw from manpower training, not only in Quebec but throughout the country. Thanks to this decision, the Government of Canada is, in fact, pulling out of training. We have promised to do so within three years, and I hope to be able to do so earlier than that.
(1435 )
The Liberals promised that they would kill, scrap and abolish the GST. What they have delivered, however, is a billion dollar bribe and a blended sales tax. Actually the BS tax is a good name for it because that is exactly what Liberal candidates were spreading on the campaign trail during the last election.
Since the government readily admits that it broke its promise on the GST, will the Prime Minister keep at least one election promise and ask the Deputy Prime Minister to resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I read earlier in French what is written on page 22. Hon. members are not setting a very good example by throwing books on the floor when there are kids in the House of Commons. They are trying to look at their Parliament and they see that behaviour from members.
I can start to read this but it would take a long time. On page 111 of the red book we called for the cancellation of the helicopter program. Done. We called for cuts to national defence. Done. We called for cuts in the professional service budget. Done. We called for cuts in grants to business. Done. I can read more. The youth service corps. Done. Literacy, done.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The House is rather spirited today. The wording of the questions and preambles is getting very close to being unparliamentary.
Members know the rules of the House. They can quote from a document but the document should not be flailed about in any way. I would appeal to members, both in the questions and the answers, to put them succinctly so that we can get on with question period.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the Prime Minister boasted about his decades of experience in the House of Commons. Now he is telling Canadians that he did not know what he was doing.
The Prime Minister is saying he did not know what he was doing when he said that he would kill, scrap and abolish the GST. For crying out loud, the man was the finance minister. That is nothing but garbage, just like the red book.
Since it is clear that he played Canadians for fools in the last election, since it is clear that the Liberals knew they could not keep their commitments, and since it is clear that the Deputy Prime Minister pledged to resign if that commitment was not met and yet she still sits here, why should Canadians believe anything this Prime Minister and this government says?
(1440 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on an odious reference from the member's preamble to his other question, the use of the word ``bribe'' in reference to one section of the country.
Yesterday the premier of Alberta said he felt Alberta is entitled to a reduction in the federal sales tax rate as it applies to his province. That is a point of view that may well be expressed in honest debate. No one in that government has referred to bribes or other odious terms used.
I quote the Minister of Finance for Alberta: ``We are Canadians from one end of the country to the other. The fact is that Canadians living in Alberta will probably pay more to Confederation during this time and certainly during the 1970s than Canadians living in say Saskatchewan or in Newfoundland. I do not believe this government'', the Conservative Government of Alberta,``is a believer in cheque book federalism. Canada is much more than that''.
I certainly hope there is never a merger between the Reform Party and the Tories. If that were the case, there would be a fundamental lack of decency in the Reform Party that would disappear from the right wing of the spectrum.
Yesterday Louise Harel, Quebec's minister of employment and solidarity, was quoted as saying the following: ``While Quebec is
focussing considerable efforts on getting employment back on its feet, in partnership with all those involved within the province, Ottawa is headed in the opposite direction, without any co-operation with the Quebec authorities''.
While everyone in Quebec is pooling forces in an attempt to solve the unemployment problem, how can the Minister of Human Resources Development justify the federal government's unilateral action, which creates divisions?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are committed to holding discussions with our Quebec colleagues, in order to find ways of meeting our commitments concerning withdrawal from manpower training.
As for all of the other issues relating to active measures and what is reflected in part II of the employment insurance bill now before Parliament, we have every intention of entering into negotiations with the province of Quebec, and all of the provinces in this country, for it is the intention of the Government of Canada to show good faith in this entire matter, once again demonstrating that, with flexibility and good intentions, we can prove the federation is working very well.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, where manpower is concerned, the time for talking is over. We have been hearing for five years now that the governments are going to talk together about it, yet every time there is a meeting, you do not attend. Do something.
Does the minister confirm that what Louise Harel, the minister, says is true: by his involvement in manpower training, he is perpetuating overlap, creating five new programs which duplicate provincial programs already in place, in Quebec in particular?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that what we are doing at this time is adding to duplication and overlap.
What we believe is that there is a desire country-wide to find new ways of getting federation to work. This includes anything related to job creation, trade training, active measures in the private sector. We hope to be able to find solutions to these knotty problems, for they have been discussed long enough, as the hon. member has said.
I do, however, find it somewhat surprising that, when we are attempting to withdraw from manpower training, the hon. member appears to think we are heading in the wrong direction. I thought that was the direction the consensus in Quebec wanted us to take.
[English]
(1445 )
He then turned around and blamed his advisors for it. He booted out anyone who got in his way and then he forced his own finance minister to accept the blame for his broken promises.
Why does the Prime Minister, not the finance minister or his advisors, not have the courage and the honesty to stand up in the House-
The Speaker: I am sure the House will agree that neither the courage nor the honesty of any of our hon. members is in question in the House.
I ask the hon. member to please rephrase his question and go directly to the question now.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, why in order to win the 1993 election did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians from coast to coast?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not too offended because I had the prudence to put all that in writing. From page 22:
In the first session of a new Parliament, a Liberal government will give the all-party finance committee of the House of Commons a 12-month mandate to consult fully with Canadians and provincial governments and to report on ways to achieve tax fairness, simplicity and harmonization. In particular, the committee will be mandated to report on all options for alternatives to the current GST. A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small businesses, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister, instead of referring to the red book, should look at the fourth edition of the blue book, Reform's way of running the country.
The Prime Minister knew before the election that the GST was not going to go, yet he pawned it off on regular Canadians who were thinking there was going to be a break in this country, and it was a bold faced lie.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to please withdraw the last statement.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I cannot do that in all good conscience.
(1450 )
The Speaker: We will take a couple of minutes to quiet down. I will return to this at the end of question period. The hon. member for Saint-Jean.
An event dubbed ``Extreme Fighting'' is scheduled to be held on the Kahnawake reserve this Friday. I think the atmosphere at these events is not unlike that now prevailing in this House.
In the last few days, promoters have been advertising this event, which is due to be broadcast on Pay-TV throughout the U.S. At first sight, this type of combat violates provisions in the Criminal Code.
Since the setting up of equipment to allow satellite broadcasting of ``Extreme Fighting'' in the U.S. must be authorized by Industry Canada, can the Minister of Industry tell us if he has received an application in this case? If not, can he assure us that any potential broadcaster will not use a general authorization from his department to transmit an illegal event?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the setting up of equipment per se is not illegal. If there is an illegal act it will be dealt with by the authorities in Quebec.
There have been meetings between Grand Chief Norton and the Quebec government. They set out rules of combat: no biting, no scratching and no time outs, which I found was a preference by the Mohawks in the province of Quebec for the next referendum rules.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to notify the Minister of Industry that, this morning, the Quebec government advised one of his departmental officials, the one in charge of telecommunications, that this event was illegal.
My question is very simple. Since this event is illegal, can the minister promise not to authorize the setting up of technical equipment so that the event scheduled to be held on Friday in Quebec can be broadcast all over the U.S.?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the meetings that there has been no definitive finding of illegality. If there is, it is up to the authorities in Quebec to stop the illegal action. It is clearly within their jurisdiction. If they do not want to exercise it that is their problem. It is their decision whether the event is illegal or legal.
Will the minister of defence now, finally after 50 years, authorize the production of replica certificates so these Canadian radar technician veterans can finally be thanked?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a misunderstanding that has gone on for 50 years and has continued until recent days. I think all Canadians recognize the great contribution made by the radar technicians in the second world war when attached to the Royal Air Force.
Certainly if the British government is willing to recognize replicas of the original certificates, we will have a Government of Canada representative present those certificates to the survivors or to their families.
I hope this action will meet with the approval of the survivors and their families.
What the government has done reinforces the public perception that promises made in election campaigns are utterly worthless and that politicians, even prime ministers, cannot be trusted.
(1455 )
In reinforcing that perception, the government has undermined the integrity of every member of the House, regardless of their party.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the damage the GST shell game has done to the integrity of politics in Canada, and what, if anything, does he propose to do to repair the damage he has done?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will set the record straight. For many days we have read the
commitment on page 22. It is very clear. If we were only to defend it, that would be something people might say is a bit political.
There was a committee of the House, all members were there and for a year they looked into the problem. The Reform Party tabled a minority report and talked about a solution: ``It is simply unacceptable that Canada remains the only country in the world with ten different sales tax regimes. We commend the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces''.
These are the words of the leader of the Reform Party. If he wants to show integrity, he should repeat that in the House and compliment the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister evades the issue of integrity. If he wants me to repeat something in the House, I will repeat something he said in 1991 when he was in opposition.
He was asked by a fellow Liberal what assurance he could give the people of Canada that the Liberal Party will have a value system that people can trust. The Prime Minister said: ``Trust will come when we say we will get rid of the GST. We will have an alternative, but we will not try to buy votes. People want an honest government. They do not want a repetition of what this government'', the Mulroney government, ``has done to this nation, making promises and breaking them all the time''.
How does the Prime Minister reconcile what he said in 1991 with what he has done this week with the GST? Will he admit the integrity of his government is in danger of sinking to the level of the Mulroney administration?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid of that at all. We have it in writing on page 22. If we were not to implement page 22, he would be complaining to the House. However, he found our solution was so good that he commended us and said we were on the right track. He is in agreement with us that page 22 was the right approach and he confirmed that when members of his own party in committee said we were doing the right thing.
The position of the Reform Party and the position of the Liberal Party, on page 22 in writing, is exactly the same. That is why people have confidence in the government today.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard how businesses and consumers in three Atlantic provinces will benefit from harmonizing the provincial and federal sales taxes. Businesses and consumer groups have endorsed this plan. My province, Ontario, did not sign an agreement with the federal government.
Can the minister tell the House why Ontario should join the process and harmonize its provincial sales tax with the federal sales tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer this question, especially coming from the chairperson of the economic policy committee of our caucus.
There is no doubt that Ontario as a major exporter and as a major manufacturer would benefit enormously from sales tax harmonization. It means increased competitiveness. It means lower costs. It means less administration for both business and for government.
For the people of Ontario it would mean lower prices, as the embedded retail sales taxes within prices under the Ontario system at the present time would disappear. The fact is that sales tax harmonization would benefit Canada, and Ontario, the heartland of Confederation, would benefit enormously.
(1500)
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister said yesterday that the harmonization of the sales tax programs would be good for business. The provinces have already said that the harmonization plans will cost them revenues because today's corporations pay provincial sales tax but under the new harmonized system they will not.
I assume the Minister of Finance has reviewed this carefully. Can he tell the House and the people of Canada how much of the tax burden is being transferred from the corporations to the ordinary taxpaying consumer?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that over a four year period, and indeed that is the basis of the transition agreement with Atlantic Canada, the increased economic activity that would be generated, the number of jobs that would be generated as a result of getting away from the tremendous burden that retail sales tax places upon the provinces, would benefit consumers.
Also, the fact is that the rate will be lower in Atlantic Canada. It would be lower in other parts of Canada. Consumer prices will be lower. This is a win-win situation for business, for employers and for consumers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
It is not so much any more a question of what was said or what was not said. In this sense at least, the fact is your Speaker has found some of the language which was used in question period to be unparliamentary.
I address myself of course directly to the member for Fraser Valley West. My dear colleague, I well understand in the course of heated debate and exchanges that sometimes words are used which upon reflection, if we had a chance, we would probably withdraw.
I asked you, my colleague, directly during the question period and I put off until now hoping that we could clarify this. The words you used in my view, and I speak with the full authority this House has given me, were the words ``bold faced lie''. I believe those are the words that were precisely used. I asked the hon. member for Fraser Valley West if he would withdraw. At the time the hon. member declined from withdrawing and I said that I would put the matter over until after question period.
(1505)
I hope the member has reflected a bit on the words that were used. I would once again ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to withdraw those words. I put it to you squarely my dear colleague. Will you withdraw the words you used during question period?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I mean no disrespect to the Chair. May I supplant them with the words ``deliberately misled''?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member puts a question to the Chair and it deserves an answer. The answer is quite simple my dear colleague. I have asked you not to rephrase the question. I have asked you to please withdraw those words. That is what I would ask you to do now.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I decline to do so.
The Speaker: Colleagues, as your Speaker, I want you to know that I take no pleasure, none whatsoever, in naming anyone in our midst.
My dear colleague from Fraser Valley West, Mr. White, I have to name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair. Pursuant to the order granted to me by Standing Order 11, I order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of this day's sitting. I would ask that you do so now.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) having withdrawn:]
Events have led me to believe there has been a deliberate attempt by the office of the government House leader to deny me an answer to my questions on the Order Paper. I refer to questions Nos. 25 and 26. Comments made by an official from the office of the government House leader were quoted in the Ottawa Sun on April 22: ``He is outrageously seeking information and a lot of it. The government is not going to divert personnel to answer the questions''.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this constitutes a contempt of Parliament. I refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 97:
While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member-(1510 )
Questions Nos. 25 and 26 on the Order Paper to which I refer were first submitted as a single question on December 1, 1994 and have been on the Order Paper ever since. While the government failed to answer within the prescribed 45 day period, I was patient.
On June 21, 1995 I raised a point of order asking that the question be answered. The parliamentary secretary to the House leader replied that he was sorry it had taken so long and that the government had been assiduous in attending to its duties. He alluded to the fact that I could expect a response soon thereafter.
I waited until October 26, 1995, four months later, to raise a second point of order and again ask the parliamentary secretary when I could expect an answer. The parliamentary secretary replied that he would get me an answer and that it was nearing completion, but that I should be patient.
When Parliament resumed, I resubmitted the question as it is part of my parliamentary duties. However it would now seem that the government has no intention, and never had any intention, of answering the question. This obstruction of my parliamentary duties was confirmed in a Toronto Sun article published Sunday, April 21, 1996.
Erskine May's 21st edition clearly describes contempt as follows: ``Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence''.
I requested the information in accordance with Standing Order 39(1) which states:
Questions may be placed on the Order Paper seeking information from ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; and from other members, relating to any bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such members may be concerned;This request of mine was submitted under the rules of the House and is considered a proceeding of Parliament for the purpose of privilege.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 70, defines a proceeding of Parliament as follows: ``Since two of Parliament's constituent elements, the House of Commons and the Senate, were established for the enactment of laws, those events necessarily incidental to the enactment of laws are part of the proceedings in Parliament. However Parliament has also always been a forum to receive petitions, and the crown's satisfying the grievances of members before granting supply eventually led to straightforward requests for information''.
Therefore the events necessarily incidental to petitions, questions and notices of motions in Parliament in the 17th century and today are all events which are part of the proceedings in Parliament.
Moreover, a report of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act in 1939 stated that a proceeding in Parliament covers both the asking of a question and the giving written notice of such a question.
As an opposition member it is my duty to scrutinize the government and to ensure that it is spending the taxpayers' money wisely. The Order Paper is one method of seeking information from the government. The Order Paper questions are allowed under the rules of this House and as I have pointed out are a part of the proceedings of Parliament.
I am an elected member of this House performing my duties in accordance with the rules established by this House, and an official in the office of the government House leader is attempting to impede directly or indirectly in a proceeding in Parliament.
There was a case in 1973 when the member for Northumberland-Durham received a letter from the solicitor general stating that the RCMP did not make it a practice of opening mail. Subsequent questions in the House by that same member on November 9, 1977 to the then solicitor general regarding mail openings by the RCMP provided a sufficient and direct relationship with the proceedings in Parliament for the purpose of privilege. Later, remarks before a royal commission were made by the former commissioner of the RCMP stating that the practice was very often that ministers' letters were not exactly drafted on precise statements of fact. The sum of this evidence permitted the Speaker in 1978 to find 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.
(1515)
Whereas the case of the member for Northumberland-Durham dealt with a matter of an official deliberately misleading a member, what I bring to your attention is a case where an official in the minister's office is deliberately trying to interfere with me as a member of Parliament by deliberately not being forthright with resources, causing information to be withheld.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, in the case of the citation from Beauchesne, the Speaker once ruled that there could be a question of privilege where there is a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member.
I take issue with the comments of the official in the media in regard to my request. That official is quoted as saying that a request for information from a parliamentarian is outrageous. Such arrogance and insolence by an official in the face of Parliament is contemptuous. Is this how ministers' staff view requests for information from opposition members? Here we have a staff person making judgments on a request from Parliament, virtually thumbing his nose at this House.
Mr. Speaker, I refer you to citation 59 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, which reads:
Traditionally, articles in the press reflecting badly on the character of the House have been treated as contempts. Two members of the staff of the House have been dismissed for writing such articles, and in 1873 the House judged an article written by a Member to be a ``scandalous, false and malicious libel upon the honour, integrity and character of this House, and of certain Members thereof, and a high contempt of the privileges and constitutional authority of this House.''Surely an official referring to a request from Parliament as ``outrageous'' reflects on the dignity of Parliament and of parliamentarians.
In conclusion, I want to address the issue of ministerial responsibility, which you may be tempted to factor into your decision. I draw to your attention once again the Speaker's ruling of November 9, 1978, which appears at page 966 of Hansard, where the Speaker said:
I do not think that there is procedural significance to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, it appears that we are now embarking on a different course in having the
House, through a question of privilege, reach around the minister and examine directly the conduct of an official-it seems to me [it] is not [a] procedural matter.The Speaker did not consider that there was a prima facie question of privilege in 1979. There is no procedural significance in this case either, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that you consider my points accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you review this matter. Should you find that there is a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has been trying very hard to answer the questions on the Order Paper of the member. The questions are on the record but I would like to remind the member of the nature of those questions.
In question No. 25, the member is asking:
For each department, agency and Crown Corporation, how many employees, including parliamentary agents, Governor-in-Council appointees, armed forces personnel and RCMP personnel receive a living allowance for a second residence and/or a transportation allowance from their residence to their place of work where the distance exceeds 40km?Question No. 26 asks:
What is the rank, position or title of each recipient of second residence allowance and/or transportation allowance from residence to place of work and, what is the cost for individual recipients and method of taxation of these benefits?Ever since the hon. member asked those two questions, the government has tried to answer in the best way it can. However, those two questions require much work and personnel have to be taken away from their regular duties in order to answer them. We have tried. As a matter of fact, the hon. member mentioned it himself when asked about the questions in October and the then parliamentary secretary to the House leader said that the government was working on them, to be patient and he would get the answers.
The House prorogued. Now the hon. member has asked the questions again. I repeat that, yes, if he is patient he will get his answers. They are very complex answers.
However, there is no question of privilege. The government wants to answer every question.
(1520 )
However, I understand that the nature of the questions requires a lot of work. If the member wants a good answer he should allow the government to provide it in due course.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add briefly to the points raised by the deputy House leader for the government.
First, the hon. member in his speech to the House reflected on the parallel which he drew between his case and that of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham some time ago. He also alleged that the wilfully giving of false information, which was the issue at the time, is synonymous with what is occurring today and that there is a deliberate attempt to deny information to him. He also stated that the request had been cited as ``outrageous''. He drew on citation 59 of Beauchesne.
First, written questions are similar in the standing orders to oral questions in the House of Commons. They are under the same section of the standing orders. Standing Order 39 refers to questions as questions from members. In other words, Mr. Speaker, these are private members' questions and they are to be treated as such. A request by a private member does not constitute an order of the House.
Second, I do not know if the evaluation made by someone that the question was so vast in scope that it was outrageous, is fair or not. The fact that the work required to answer the question may be very large may be one thing but that in no way suggests that the question should not be put. However, it does suggest that a lot of work may be required in order to put the answer together.
The deputy House leader has indicated the size of this project. When we are talking about a couple of hundred thousand civil servants, measuring all of the things that the member has asked for is indeed a very significant task and perhaps the word outrageous was the appropriate word.
However, there is not a deliberate attempt to deny or wilfully give false information. The case brought by the hon. member in relation to citation 59 of Beauchesne reflects those things that have to do with ``reflecting badly on the character of the House''.
If I understand it correctly, no one said that such a request made by the House itself would have been outrageous nor was any comment made disparaging it. In the case of the issue in question, I believe there was a parallel some years ago, known as the Doyle case, which was judged as being a contempt and insult to the House as an institution.
Nothing is parallel in the discussion today. We have a private member's request which is perhaps a legitimate request. Nevertheless, it is one that is so wide in scope that it will cost not only tens of thousands of dollars to accumulate the answer. However, I am sure that when the information is available it will be responded to. It is not a wilful attempt to deceive the House in any way but a request that is so vast in scope that it will be difficult for anyone to achieve the desired result, notwithstanding the best efforts of everyone in government.
The Speaker: Colleagues, with regard to the question of privilege, it would seem to me, at least at first glance, that neither privilege nor contempt are in question here.
However, after having listened to the dissertation of the hon. member for St. Albert and after hearing the contributions made by the secretary of state and the government whip, I would like to review all of the papers. If it is necessary I will return to the House with a decision on this matter.
I am sure that all hon. members will appreciate that sometimes the scope of a question is such that it could take a little bit longer to answer. On the other hand, an attempt should be made by the government to answer these questions as quickly as possible.
(1525 )
I will take hon. members' advice and I will study it. If necessary, I will get back to the House and give a definitive answer on the question of privilege.
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Through a Page I sent you a notice that I wished to raise a question of privilege arising from today's question period. I also gave notice to the hon. member who was involved in the question of privilege.
The Speaker: That is correct. I confirm that I did receive a note from the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park on a question of privilege which arose out of the question period. I am prepared to listen to the question of privilege of the hon. member.
Why do I raise this? Because this is a deliberate contempt of Parliament. Viewers were watching this on television.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Flis: Members of the Reform Party are laughing. This is the party that promised to bring decorum into the House of Commons. This is how they are doing it. They are ridiculing the orders of this House. They are ridiculing the authority of Beauchesne.
Hundreds of students were sitting in the gallery today watching question period. Hopefully, some of them will be sitting in these seats. We cannot allow the kind of behaviour displayed by the hon. member for Beaver River.
As members of Parliament we have to control our tempers. I know that debates get heated. But the next book could be thrown at you, Mr. Speaker. The next book could be thrown at someone on this side of the House.
Some hon. members: Oh. Oh.
Mr. Flis: The Reform Party which promised to bring decorum to this place should listen to my motion: I give notice that whereas the hon. member for Beaver River did show contempt of Parliament with her misbehaviour during question period April 24, 1996, by throwing a book onto the floor of the House of Commons, I move:
That the hon. member for Beaver River appear at the Bar to purge the contempt and promise better conduct in the future.Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I guess he is throwing the book at me.
The member talked about the fact that members need to control ourselves. Yes we do. This is a very emotional debate. The member talked about purging contempt of Parliament. I hardly think that throwing me, one single member of Parliament, out of the House is going to do anything to purge contempt in this place.
I think this is a point of debate. In terms of decorum I have just celebrated my seventh anniversary in this place. I have talked about decorum in the House of Commons. No, I do not think it is cute or theatrical to do stunts.
The Prime Minister waves the red book around constantly. When I bring it forward or even show it, all of a sudden I am using a prop. But he can wave it and flail it around and it is acceptable because he is the Prime Minister. I do not think that is acceptable.
My frustration today about the red book was watching the Prime Minister wave it around. Then I got into trouble when I even lifted it up to read from it or make reference to it. My frustration stems from the fact that I sat in opposition with these people when this debate was raging and saw the emotion attached to it from their side when the rat pack went hysterical over it. I am now sitting on this side of the House watching these people defending it amazingly.
(1530)
I appreciate the member's bringing this to the concern of Parliament. I certainly do not want to challenge the Chair or any member in the House, but I firmly believe because of what we have seen happen over the GST yesterday and today that the red book truly belongs on the floor.
The Speaker: With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, the Chair agrees there was disorder caused in the House. The Chair agrees there was a breach of decorum.
I hate to use the word punish, but in order to rectify the situation, members will remember your Speaker passed on from the questioner and hopefully that would have rectified the situation.
I have pointed on numerous occasions to the use of props. It is true the red book has been quoted extensively by members on both sides. In the rules of the House if a member is quoting from a book, I permit them to read. Whenever it is being used as a prop by flailing it around or throwing it, God forbid, I step in.
In the heat of debate, because emotions are running high, we should get our emotions under control. As such, I urge members on both sides that when quoting from a book, quote from the book, but you need not hold it aloft, whether it be the red book or the blue book, it does not matter.
There was a breach of decorum. As your Speaker I did intervene. I would like to let the matter rest there, encouraging you always to keep your emotions under control because we are being watched by 30 million of our fellow citizens and we would hope to set a very good example.