CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 029 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, November 6, 1997 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 1617 HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, November 6, 1997 The House met at 10 a.m. According to the hon. member, the case he put before the House is much more serious. He argued that, in designating a committee _______________ defined in clause 10 of Bill C-2, the Minister of Finance had acted as if the bill is sure to be passed in its present form. In the opinion Prayers of the hon. member, to allow the government to proceed to act as if a bill has been approved by the House would set a dangerous _______________ precedent. He stated this ‘‘undercuts the authority of Parliament D (1005) and derogates from the rights and privileges of every member to have input into legislation prior to its enactment’’. [English] [Translation] PRIVILEGE In response to the arguments raised, the Leader of the Govern- CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD—SPEAKER’S RULING ment in the House made the claim that the press release did not in The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of any way seek to influence the House in its decision to adopt or privilege raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley on October reject the bill. He added that the government’s action was merely a 29, 1997 concerning a government news release announcing the prudent step so as to have sufficient lead time to prepare definitive membership of the nominating committee for the proposed Canada appointments to the investment board if the bill were adopted. pension plan investment board. [English] [Translation] I thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley for raising the matter I have carefully examined the submissions from the hon. mem- and for providing the Chair with a copy of the document in ber for Fraser Valley and from the government House leader. I question, and I thank the Leader of the Government in the House think it may be useful to review the sequence of events on this for his comments on the matter. matter. [English] As I understand it, on October 8, 1997, the House adopted Bill The hon. member for Fraser Valley referred to a news release C-2 at second reading and referred it to the Standing Committee on dated October 23 in which the Department of Finance announced Finance. On October 23, the Department of Finance issued its press release and the next day, on October 24 during question period the the membership of a committee that will nominate candidates for hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill asked a question on the the proposed Canada pension plan investment board. He pointed establishment of this nominating committee and its effect on out that clause 10(2) of Bill C-2, the Canada pension plan legislation before the House. The hon. government House leader investment board act specifically provides for this nominating replied that the government was simply acting responsibly in committee and he reminded the House that this bill had only been putting in place the arrangements necessary to proceed if the bill taken up by the Standing Committee on Finance on October 28. were adopted. Thus, the hon. member argued, the Minister of Finance had established this nominating committee under the provisions of a bill not yet adopted by the House and not yet even considered by One of the first tasks of the Speaker, when dealing with a the standing committee. question of privilege, is to determine whether the matter has been raised at the earliest possible opportunity. As I have just indicated, The hon. member drew a parallel between this and two other the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill brought this matter to the cases raised in the House concerning government advertising on attention of the House during question period on the day following the GST. In the cases cited, Speaker Fraser had not found a breach the issue of the news release. Clearly there was ample opportunity of privilege because the departmental information alluded to to raise the matter as a question of privilege at that time, yet three ‘‘proposals’’, thus it recognized that the legislation had not yet sitting days elapsed before the hon. member for Fraser Valley been adopted. raised this question in the House. 1618 COMMONS DEBATES November 6, 1997 Routine Proceedings D (1010 ) [Translation] [Translation] I trust that today’s decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials Now, if I may, I shall move on to the question of privilege per se, and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it. in order to determine whether any parliamentary privilege has been [English] breached. After very carefully reflecting on this matter, and for the specific [English] reasons explained, I have concluded that the matter submitted by the hon. member for Fraser Valley does not constitute, prima facie, In the present case, the Chair cannot conclude that freedom of a breach of privilege. speech has been adversely affected since members will have the I thank hon. members for their contributions to this discussion. opportunity to debate Bill C-2 and propose amendments to it, either in the finance committee or in the House during report stage. _____________________________________________ One might further ask whether this action has unduly prejudiced debate in committee or in the House. Like Speaker Fraser in his ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS October 10, 1989 ruling on GST advertising, I would say that this House has never had any difficulty in expressing its opinions when [English] dealing with controversial situations. The House is a forum for ANNUAL REPORT TO PARLIAMENT debate and the consideration of different points of view. Members do not work in a vacuum. They are constantly aware of pressures Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and and factors outside the House itself. While an action like this one Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as may offend some hon. members, it would be hard to make a case part of the most complete effort ever undertaken to inform that it prejudiced debate. parliamentarians and Canadians on the government’s performance, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a report [Translation] entitled ‘‘Accounting for Results: Annual Report to Parliament of the President of the Treasury Board’’. Similarly, in examining the privilege of immunity from obstruc- D (1015 ) tion and intimidation, I cannot conclude that any hon. member has been obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary I also have the honour of tabling at the same time 78 pilot reports duties by the minister’s action. on performance. [English] * * * [Translation] In deciding a question of privilege, the Speaker must find whether, prima facie, there is sufficient cause to set aside the NATIONAL FORUM ON CANADA’S INTERNATIONAL business of the House so that the House can consider a breach of RELATIONS one of its privileges or, more generally, a contempt of its authority. In this case, I find that no specific privilege has been breached. The Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister authority given to this House to debate freely has not been of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of compromised, nor has there been any obstruction or intimidation of tabling in the House today the report by the National Forum on members. Canada’s International Relations, 1997 edition. The National Forum is one of the Government’s initiatives in Nonetheless, the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of response to the 1994 report by the Special Joint Committee on potential importance since it touches the role of members as Canada’s Foreign Policy. The Forum is part of an exercise to legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this democratize foreign policy, both here in policy development and perspective that the actions of the Department of Finance are of abroad through efforts like the campaign to eliminate antipersonnel some concern. The vocabulary of the news release is subject to mines. varying interpretations. But even if one argues that the subject of the news release is properly the creation of the nominating * * * committee and not the progress of Bill C-2, the fact remains that the reference to the legislative process is cursory at best. [English] INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr. practices. That it is the Department of Finance that is complained Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the pleasure to of once again has not gone unnoticed. present to this House the report of the Canadian branch Common- November 6, 1997 COMMONS DEBATES 1619 Routine Proceedings wealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 43rd Common- the House gives its consent, I move that the ninth report of the wealth Parliamentary Conference which took place September 14 Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to to 24 in Mauritius. the House earlier this day be concurred in. * * * The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. parlia- mentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE move the motion? PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS Some hon. members: Agreed. Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the The Acting Speaker (Mr.