39th Parliament, 1st Session
(April 3, 2006 - )

Edited Hansard • Number 034

Tuesday, June 6, 2006

[Hansard Pages 2023-2024]

Points of Order

Oral Questions

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Yorkton—Melville reported to the House on June 1:

We have heard from the Auditor General and senior bureaucrats that the Liberals deliberately hid millions of dollars from Parliament.

The transcript of testimony by the Auditor General and senior officials before the public safety committee contains no such allegation. On the contrary, the witnesses specifically repudiate that allegation.

The hon. member's statement, as it stands, misrepresents the testimony of witnesses and misleads the House. I have discussed the matter with the hon. member and would invite him to clarify for the record this matter before the House.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that the Liberals would draw attention to probably one of the biggest fiascos that has ever been perpetrated on Parliament and the Canadian people. This is what the Auditor General said:

--significant costs incurred by the Canada Firearms Centre in 2003-04 were not reported properly to Parliament--

She also said:

--it also decided not to seek additional funding through Supplementary Estimates in 2003-04.

In light of what the Auditor General said, I am not misleading Parliament. Let me give the House a couple of other quotations from the Auditor General's comments:

What's really inexcusable is that Parliament was in the dark.

She said:

This information was not systematically provided to Parliament.

Again, she went on to say:

--it also decided not to seek additional funding through Supplementary Estimates in 2003-04.

That was a decision by the Liberal government to do that, to not inform Parliament. I will ask the people of Canada to decide whether that is deliberate or not, when we make a conscious decision. She went on to say:

The ability of the House of Commons to cap government spending is fundamental to Parliament's control of the public purse. This means that departments and agencies need to give Parliament good estimates of their spending plans and report their actual spending properly.

She also went on to say:

Senior accounting officials of the Treasury Board Secretariat have told us that a department and its minister are responsible for the accuracy of their financial reporting.

Her entire report goes on to document the problem. I would like to refer the Speaker to a ruling from May 31, 1982 on page 17912 of the Debates. It stated:

Expressions which are unparliamentary when applied to individuals are not always so considered when applied to a whole party.

Another ruling from May 1, 1980 at page 606 of the Debates said a similar thing, but in that case the words were directed at the government instead of an individual member.

I would like to point out that the Auditor General basically said the same things. Her report has been tabled and is before the House and I quoted from it. How can that be unparliamentary?

Further, I would like the Speaker to be aware that the member will be proposing a motion to replace me as chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Safety because of something I said in the House. That is intimidation and a breach of my privileges. Marleau and Montpetit states:

By far, the most important right accorded to Members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings. It has been described as: “…a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents”.

On page 84 of Marleau and Montpetit it states:

Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation--

The precedent cited on that same page is from Speaker Lamoureux who went further and suggested that members should be protected from threats or attempts at intimidation.

I believe the Liberal Party is now resorting to intimidation against members for what they say on the floor of the House. That affects our privileges and I think it is quite clear I did not mislead Parliament.

(1505)

Hon. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, the only issue with respect to my point of order was whether the hon. misrepresented the testimony of the Auditor General. The one word he used, which I stated deliberately misrepresented the testimony of the Auditor General, as can be seen from a reading of the transcript, was when the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville characterized the Auditor General as saying that the Liberals deliberately hid millions of dollars from Parliament.

I put that question personally to the Auditor General. I asked her if she made that statement or if she would make the statement “the Liberals deliberately hid”. Her answer was categorically “no”.

That is what I am asking the hon. member to withdraw. He is misrepresenting the testimony of the Auditor General before the House. I have invited him to withdraw that statement.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Mount Royal and the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for their submissions. My recollection is we had dealt with this matter once before.

I will take the matter under advisement and get back to the House in due course with a ruling on the issue raised by the hon. member for Mount Royal.