Core 1..188 Hansard
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 145 Ï NUMBER 047 Ï 3rd SESSION Ï 40th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, May 14, 2010 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 2829 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, May 14, 2010 The House met at 10 a.m. Mr. Speaker, by long-standing constitutional convention, any MP may attend and participate in any committee meeting. Standing Order 119 says: Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise Prayers orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum. Ï (1005) He goes on to state: [English] Today, defying the Standing Order— The Speaker: The Chair has received notice of a question of My emphasis is on “defying the Standing Order”. privilege from the hon. member for Mississauga South. I will hear —the Liberal chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy the hon. member now. and Ethics— PRIVILEGE Who is myself. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS —forbade the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development from Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this participating in its proceedings. This ruling was contrary to law and turned the morning I rise on a question of privilege arising out of statements committee into a kangaroo court. made in the chamber yesterday which were, in my view, a personal Further, by denying the minister her legal right to participate, the chair was undermining the principle of ministerial responsibility and accountability, a key attack on my person, on my integrity, on my honesty, on my principle of our Constitution. It is outrageous that the chair of the ethics committee, character and on my honour as a member of Parliament. the member for Mississauga South, would reject the principle of ministerial accountability, all in an attempt to score cheap political points. He should be ashamed Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 13, I gave notice to you on a and he should resign. matter arising out of the statement by the member for Selkirk— Interlake just after question period. Those are not just casual statements. This is an indictment of a member of Parliament. It is contrary to the spirit and the intent of The reasons and the basis for making this statement, I think, are your letter of February 26, 2009, to the House leaders. sustained by all of the reasons why you, Mr. Speaker, had to issue a letter on February 26, 2009, to the House leaders of the House of It went further than that. During question period, a question was Commons concerning members' statement made pursuant to posed by the member for Peace River in which he asked: Standing Order 31 in which you state: Mr. Speaker, today is perhaps a precedent-setting day in the history of a In recent days a number of Members' Statements made pursuant to Standing Westminster system of parliament. Order 31 have caused me some concern. This morning a minister of the Crown appeared at committee as an individual. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 363 and 364, sets out According to our system of government, she is ultimately accountable for her guidelines governing the content of such statements. In particular, it states that ministry and yet the opposition, led by the chair of that committee, [myself] “personal attacks are not permitted”. I intend to halt at an early stage any trend in this dismissed our system of ministerial accountability and would not let her answer for direction. As such, I am writing to advise you that I will vigorously enforce the her department or for herself. authority given to me by Standing Order 31 to cut off Members if, in my opinion, improper statements are made. Having been silenced this morning, I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources will now be permitted to speak and to share with this House her reaction to this I am seeking your assistance in informing Members in your party of my approach seemingly unprecedented event. in this regard. It was carbon copied to the whips of the House of Commons, as The minister in response answered: well as to the two independent members of Parliament at the time. Mr. Speaker, today I voluntarily appeared before the ethics committee to answer questions about the department for which I am ultimately responsible. Shockingly, I will begin by referencing the specific statement, because I opposition members refused to allow me to speak. believe that anyone who is following this would like to know what This may be the first time in parliamentary history that a ministerial responsibility actually was said. has been denied. Ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone of our parliamentary system. On page 2787 of the House of Commons Debates of yesterday, This is proof that the opposition members are not in it for accountability or truth. the member for Selkirk—Interlake rose and stated: They are just in it for themselves. 2830 COMMONS DEBATES May 14, 2010 Privilege I think those statements from the member for Selkirk—Interlake, the member is not permitted. It did not say she could. It said that we from the assertions of the member for Peace River and from the were here to see Mr. Ryan Sparrow on the matter before the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. are very committee. clear. Mr. Speaker, I need to rise on a question of privilege because I Therefore, the whole premise of the S. O. 31 by the member for have no other recourse but to rise in the House to defend myself. Selkirk—Interlake, based on section 119, has been complied with. The committee ordered what took place there and I told them but the Mr. Richard Harris: You had a recourse yesterday. minister would not accept the ruling of the chair. Mr. Paul Szabo:Mr. Speaker, I had no recourse. I hate to say this, but when we started the questions at committee, I want to address the points and the allegations made within the member for Guelph asked, “Why did you not say that in your Standing Order 31 to demonstrate this. I appreciate that this is in email, that you were unable to give accurate figures?”. The witness reference to matters that occurred before a committee. The responded, “'ll refer that question to the Minister”. The member for proceedings are on the public website of the Parliament of Canada. Guelph said, “Well I would rather you answer the question. You're the witness”. I would simply like to indicate, with regard to the allegation from the member for Selkirk—Interlake, that I have contravened Standing Order 119, which states: The minister started to speak, notwithstanding, and she said: “Mr. Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special, or Chair, may I intervene?”. I said, “No, I'm sorry, Minister. I've made a legislative committee, may,— ruling”. She came back and said, “Mr. Chair, with all due respect, Mr. Sparrow operates under my delegated authority. Anything he And here is the operative part: does is under my authority, authority that I carry as Minister. —unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in Therefore, I have that authority. I respectfully request that I be public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum. allowed to exercise that authority myself”. The terms of reference and the order of the day before the She was arguing with the chair of a committee, which is improper. committee was with regard to a special study, a study of the I responded to her, “Yes, well, Madam Minister, the committee has allegations of deliberate interference in the release of information by already addressed this issue. In fact, it is the reason why in the the human resources department. The order said that the motion by motion we have specifically indicated that it wanted to have yourself the member for Malpeque also called specifically for witnesses. The and other witnesses at separate meetings so that this wouldn't first witness was the Minister of Human Resources Development happen. That is the motion adopted by the committee”. I went on to and following, and it says specifically, at subsequent meetings other say, “I've made my ruling”. members listed. In fact, the witness that we had at committee yesterday was one such member. The minister argued yet again with the chair of the committee The motion adopted by the committee specifically indicated that saying, “Mr. Chair, I would actually refer you...”, and then she the minister would appear first and subsequently the other witnesses. carried on. I said “order” to get order back in the committee but she That was an order of the committee. In fact, we had the minister carried on yet again even after I called for order, and said, “to the before us on May 4. We invited her to appear, pursuant to the order experts on the subject of ministerial accountability, O'Brien and of the committee, and she appeared, but she agreed only to appear Bosc, and Marleau and Montpetit, Guide for Ministers and that...”.I for one hour, even though we requested a full meeting of two hours. called for order yet a third time. However, we gave her the opportunity to address these allegations. Yesterday at committee, we asked Mr. Ryan Sparrow, who was The minister refused to listen.