Debates of Sept. 30th, 1994

1992 Referendum

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just said aloud what millions of Quebecers are quietly thinking.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleagues, I must express profound regret as your Speaker that I will have to resort to naming one of our colleagues in the House of Commons. It is a very strong sanction that you have put into the hands of your Speaker. In so doing, I would hope that all hon. members would take into grave consideration the great stakes and the great responsibilities which are entrusted to this House.

I am tempted, as a matter of fact I will once more appeal to the sense of fair play of the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe to respect the authority of the Chair and respect the authority indeed of Parliament and everything that has come to rest in this position. I would ask the hon. member in the sense of fair play if he would withdraw his accusation "que le premier ministre a menti".

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the effort that you are making and the difficult situation you are in. I also recognize that my colleagues in the Bloc see that one of their fellow members must remain firm in his decision because I deeply believe that the facts taken together do indeed show that he lied to the House.

[The Speaker]

Mr. Leroux, I must name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair.

Pursuant to the authority vested in me under Standing Order 11, I order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of today's sitting.

[Some hon. members]

Shame, shame.

[The Speaker]

Order. To continue with question period, the hon. member for Simcoe Centre.

Infrastructure

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our research indicates that as of September 19 the three levels of government have committed almost $1 billion of borrowed taxpayers' dollars to projects which are outside the red ink book definition of infrastructure. How can the minister justify this breaking of red ink book promises?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the red book promise has been fulfilled and the infrastructure program is a great success.

This program which started only a few months ago has had terrific support from every municipality and every province across this country to the point where 70 per cent of the $6 billion allocated has now in fact been approved in projects, putting 100,000 Canadians back to work.

We said that we would get our $2 billion of the $6 billion from reallocation. We outlined in great detail in the red book exactly how that is being done. I have seen municipalities and provinces right across this country pick up on that spirit, reallocate funds, find ways of providing funds to get Canadians back to work without further burdening the taxpayers of this country and that is what we have done with this program.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here at all levels is reallocating borrowed funds.

How in the name of infrastructure can you spend borrowed tax dollars on bocce courts in Toronto, the World Canoe Championship in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia or the removal of overhead electrical wires for a movie in Shelburne, Nova Scotia? The list goes on.

Will the minister take immediate action to ensure that no more borrowed tax dollars fund projects of questionable value to Canada's infrastructures?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I notice the member did not mention the arena or the library in his own riding which he did not get any-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Of course what he does know or should know is that this is based on municipal priorities. This has to do with attracting additional investment dollars to the community by the upgrading of infrastructure and it has to do with the quality of life in our community. That is what attracts additional investment dollars. That is what attracts people to live and work in our communities. These projects are based on the priorities of local government and our local communities across this country.

1992 Referendum

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the role of the federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in the referendum issue is at the very least disturbing. Is the minister prepared to state in this House that until yesterday, as he suggested, he did not know anything about the content of the telephone conversation Mr. Mulroney had with the Prime Minister on Tuesday?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I therefore have to conclude that the federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was absent from the cabinet meeting on Tuesday. In that case, does he not feel that he was much too quick to take position against Quebec when he stated, without having all the facts, that the federal government owed nothing to Quebec?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition should know that the conversation between

the Prime Minister and Mr. Mulroney took place on September 27 at around 1.30 p.m., thus after the Tuesday morning cabinet meeting. The question is therefore pointless.

That being said, what is important is that the matter has been dealt with in a way that is fair to all Canadians, including Quebecers. That was this government's aim. We did exactly what we said we would, that is if there was written evidence of an agreement, we would reimburse Quebec, and that is what we did.

Waterways

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The people of eastern Ontario are greatly concerned with the suggestion that the hours of operation for the Trent-Severn and Rideau waterways are going to be reduced. Such a reduction would greatly affect tourism and all associated businesses.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage assure us that the hours of operation of the Trent-Severn and Rideau waterways will not be reduced?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to give our colleague a position report on this important issue.

As he knows, there is an operational review concerning the Trent-Severn waterway and the Rideau Canal. Some recommendations have been made in that operational review concerning hours of operation.

Extensive consultations were carried out during the summer by stakeholders and users. An independent working group has been set up to examine the results of these consultations and I expect a report to be in my hands on October 15.

I can assure my colleague that we will take very much into consideration the representations that have been made by users and stakeholders.

Presence In The Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of the Right Honourable Douglas Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Privilege

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 28, in this House, the Prime Minister, answering a question from the Leader of the Official Opposition, said and I quote: "If conversations took place between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Bourassa, I would be delighted to know what they were about. I called Mr. Mulroney, who did not give me an answer".

This statement by the Prime Minister, which caught our attention, is the subject of our question of privilege since it was categorically contradicted by the member for Sherbrooke who said yesterday: "I made inquiries, and I later found that before Question Period yesterday, the Prime Minister knew that his predecessor had promised the Government of Quebec he would submit to his government a request to compensate Quebec for referendum expenses".

Moreover, a press release from the office of the President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs clarifies the whole issue, contradicting the statement made by the Prime Minister.

By his behaviour the Prime Minister impeded the Leader of the Official Opposition and members of the House in the discharge of their duties since the nature of the answer he gave during Question Period changed our line of questioning. The Leader of the Opposition and members of the House were asking questions pursuant to Standing Order 37 and as such were entitled to a valid answer enabling them to carry on their duties as parliamentarians.

In our view the Prime Minister's behaviour clearly constitutes contempt as defined by May, page 136, nineteenth edition:

Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of its duty, or which has a tendency to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, given the facts I mentioned, I respectfully ask that you rule that the behaviour of the Prime Minister on September 28 constitutes an obstruction to the discharge of the duties of the House and of the Leader of the Opposition and declare votable a motion to refer the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with a view to getting to the bottom of this whole thing, and reviewing the Prime Minister's answers and behaviour by calling wit-

nesses, especially the former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to your ruling in this matter and I trust that you will come to the right conclusion.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

I have nothing to add, Mr. Speaker. I clearly related everything that happened during Question Period. There can be differences of opinion between one side of the House and the other. It is a matter for debate and not a substantive issue.

I admitted earlier that I talked about this with Mr. Mulroney. I said it clearly, and he confirmed to me that he would send a letter to make things as clear as possible. Read the letter and you will see. He explained to me what had happened and I said that I would wait for his written reply before stating that I was happy with all the answers. I took every precaution to protect the public interest by ensuring that there were other witnesses.

I am being criticized for being overly cautious. It is a matter for debate. Perhaps I should have been careless. Perhaps in the future I should follow the hon. member's advice of not thinking things through before acting, as the Bloc Quebecois would like me to do. I did everything not to embarrass anyone and give half-answers because in a conversation like this we talk about many things. As I see it, I said that I had not received Mr. Mulroney's answer because he told me he would send a written reply. I preferred to rely on his written answer rather than on a verbal discussion. That is what I clearly said here in this House. I was waiting for his final answer, which arrived within 48 hours as promised.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a motion has been moved by the hon. member and I believe it is my duty to speak to the motion that the member has indicated he is willing to introduce.

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to you-

[The Speaker]

The Chair has not heard a motion. One moment, please.

If the hon. member wishes to enter into this exchange it should be on the point of privilege because there is no motion before the House.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That is exactly the point. I was indicating the fact there is no point of privilege in my estimation based on citation 31(1) of Beauchesne's which states:

A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.

Therefore, the member indicates that he wishes to put a motion, if you deem that there is a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I submit that there is not such a prima facie case of privilege because of 31(1) of Beauchesne's 6th edition.