House of Commons Hansard #118 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreed.
John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Transportation Act took any decisions about the railways out of the Liberal government's hands. Since those changes took effect the track record of the railways has been a failure.
Will the minister today stand up for western farmers and demand a standstill in rail line abandonments now? Will he back that demand with legislation if necessary?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the policy of 1996 has been very successful because five times as many short lines have been created as have been abandoned. That shows the policy is working. Smaller companies can take over these small tracks, make them economically viable and serve the interests of producers and especially farmers in Saskatchewan.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, according to a recent consultant's report Canada's health protection branch is in a crisis. This is the second report in two years reaching the same conclusion.
The head of Canada's health protection branch says that the bureau is not working at peak efficiency and the minister says he has not read the report.
Will the minister take the time to read the report, at least one of them? If he does read it, would he act expeditiously to protect Canada's health and safety?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, first I want to stress that this report deals with the workplace atmosphere in the veterinary drugs department and has nothing to do with the safety or quality of its work.
It was Health Canada that engaged this consultant to examine the workplace environment.
Recommendations have now been received, employees' concerns have been taken into account, and the recommendations have been presented to and discussed with the employees. I am assured by officials that the positive recommendations will be implemented shortly.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is underplaying the crisis because it does involve real people and a problem at the health inspection branch.
I am quoting from this morning's statements in the CBC news: “The report describes managers as autocratic, abrasive, difficult to approach and dismissive”. How can we have a functioning health protection branch when that is the attitude? It does come down to attitude and at the end of the day the health and safety of all Canadians.
If the minister refuses to do something, would he at least table the report in the House?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I emphasize again the report dealt not with the scientific capacity of the branch but rather the workplace environment. Recommendations have been made. The new director has been given a mandate to implement them. The employees have been spoken to about this change.
This is a report that was commissioned by Health Canada because we want to resolve this issue and we will.
Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In many cases CF members, their spouses and DND employees are scared to talk to somebody in their unit because of perceived problems that could result from the truth.
Could the estimable Minister of National Defence tell the House what he plans to do to help those who are unfairly treated?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we are making substantial changes in the system, providing a strengthening of the system for people who want to put their complaints in and up through the chain of command.
We are also providing an alternative for those who want to go outside the chain of command, who might feel more comfortable doing so. This morning I was very pleased on behalf of the government to announce the appointment of the first ombudsman of the Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence.
That person will listen to people who feel that their complaints need to be addressed by somebody outside the chain of command, a civilian, and I am very pleased—
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is what you get when you unite the tripe, I guess.
The supreme court's Delgamuukw decision opens the way for huge financial settlements for natives in B.C. Experts are saying the Delgamuukw decision could cost up to $50 billion in B.C., but unfortunately the finance minister has not seen fit to set aside anything in the main estimates in the form of contingent liabilities for this huge draw upon the federal treasury.
Why not? Why has the finance minister not put anything on the books? Where is this money to come from? Is it to come from increases in taxes or is he to cut social programs again?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the difference between the approaches here. First we have the Reform who opposes the Nisga'a agreement in principle. We have the Reform who says that we can legislate away the constitutional rights of aboriginal people. We have the Reform Party that six months later, after the Delgamuukw decision, finally starts talking about it and then of course wants to bring in the army anyway.
If we look at our approach we are making progress with the Nisga'a. We understand and support the supreme court's recommendation that we negotiate solutions. Most important, the day after the Delgamuukw decision I was in British Columbia with our partners who are all at the table recognizing that to make progress on this very important issue we must be together.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Quebec stakeholders agree on the need to hold public hearings on the dredging of the St. Lawrence River. However, the minister will not hold such hearings, as authorized under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
How could the Minister of the Environment allow these dredging contracts to be awarded without public hearings, without giving members of the public an opportunity to express their views on the matter, when everyone, including the Quebec government, is asking for public hearings?
Christine Stewart LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the issue my colleague refers to has been dealt with by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In reviewing this project, it had two public hearings. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has given permits. I have reviewed the process and it has complied with everything necessary under the Environmental Assessment Act.
I am convinced that this project will be good for the environment. I will receive regular reports from my colleague on the remedial aspects of it.
Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, this government has stated it will act responsibly toward the Dene of Deline and the terrible legacy inflicted on them.
Members of this community still watch loved ones die from these, to quote the government's words, deadly and insidious substances radium and uranium.
Will this government commit to immediate crisis assistance, the first step of the community's 14 point essential response and redress plan, yes or no?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned with the potential impacts of historical uranium mining in the Northwest Territories. Along with my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, I am looking forward to meeting with representatives of the Deline tomorrow.
Diane St-Jacques Progressive Conservative Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, on June 5, the officials of Human Resources Development advised the offices in the regions of Quebec affected by the ice storm to stop all new activities involving additional funds.
Despite the injection of $6.4 million into the program, the Quebec region is still short nearly $2 million and there is still a desperate need. We have been told that an additional $9 million plus is required.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development follow the recommendations of his officials and ask Treasury Board for additional funds?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I receive a number of memos and recommendations from my department. I always look at them carefully and with respect. I do the necessary follow-up in the best interests of my fellow citizens.
In this matter, as in others, I think we are considered to have been vigilant. We are following the situation very closely.
I think we acted quickly and efficiently in the case of the ice storm. We have invested between $45 million and $50 million from the employment insurance fund to help people through it. If more needs to be done, we will consider the matter with an open mind.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I know that you are very interested in the good reputation of the House and its members.
For your information and the information of members and of the general public, I would like to elaborate on a statement made by our colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, during the period set aside for statements by members, regarding an action by our colleague, the member for Rosemont.
In fairness to the member for Rosemont, and out of respect for him, I would like to point out that he acted in good faith, not realizing that he was breaking any Standing Order. When he became aware that he had done so, he immediately consulted the House's Director General of Financial Services, who confirmed that he had indeed breached the Standing Orders. The member for Rosemont therefore undertook to pay, and did in fact pay, the costs of the mailing, including postage, envelopes and letterhead.
I am therefore inclined to regard the remarks by the member for Ahuntsic as defamatory.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
This is not really a point of order, but I thank the Bloc Quebecois whip for this clarification.
Personally, I would prefer not to see members launching these sorts of attacks because sometimes we do not have all the facts. In my view, this is not a point of order, but I accept the clarification and I would like the matter to end there.
The House resumed consideration of the business of supply.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out that today, as we are debating the estimates, when we think the most important issue facing parliament is the spending of the public purse, the approving of taxation and the spending of $145 billion of taxpayer money, we would take that very seriously in our debates in the House of Commons.
The unfortunate news is that we treat the whole process as a completely perfunctory process where we have the estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board and automatically refer them to committee.
Unfortunately we know that the committees do not take their work seriously as far as the estimates, the reason being they know they make no difference. Never in the last 25 years have we in this House been able to change one single penny of the estimates.
For that reason, the committees say why should they bother knocking their heads trying to introduce changes to the estimates, spending the money more intelligently, spending the money on issues that are more important to Canadians. The problem is this government is not prepared to listen and previous governments have not been prepared to listen.
When the President of the Treasury Board tables his estimates around March 1, he takes the arrogant approach and says he basically has the approval of the House even though here we are on June 9 voting on these amounts.
One of the big affronts is that we are dealing only with is $42 billion of expenditures.
The other $103 billion was approved by statute some time in the past. When I say some time in the past, that could have been 50 years ago. It was the last time that we in this House had the opportunity to pass judgement on a program that required expenditure of taxpayer funds.
When the legislation is passed, that is called statutory authority and the government never has to come back to this House again to seek its approval to spend the money on these programs as the costs balloon up and up.
It is a huge affront to this place and to the Canadian people that later on today we will be voting on only $42 billion of a total expenditure of $145 billion.
The other affront is the way the rules of this House have been organized to ensure the government gets its way. When we look at the normal process in the business of the House, a bill is introduced which can be amended and the amendment can be amended again. We first vote on the subamendment and if that passes, it amends the main amendment. If we vote on that and it passes, then we have amended the piece of legislation. We will vote on the legislation and if that passes, the amendments have caused a change.
We start at the bottom and work our way up. Not so with the estimates because as soon as we table a motion that we want to reduce the estimates, in essence if we wish to amend the estimates, we do not vote on the amendment, we do not vote on any subamendment. The first thing the rules say is that when we put forth an amendment, that causes the President of the Treasury Board to move concurrence in his main amount.
I am looking at the 1998-99 estimates, parts one and two, page 1-44. Their total expenditure under Vote No. 1 is $867,573,000. If we want to reduce the amount of money the Department of Health is going to spend by even $10, that will cause the President of the Treasury Board to put forth a motion to concur in the total expenditure of $867,573,000 and the House has to vote to say we are going to give the department that full amount of money. If that vote were to fail, the department would get no money and therefore our motion to reduce would be irrelevant.
That is why it is impossible to defeat a motion on the main estimates, because it is preceded by a concurrence motion. That is why the rules have been turned upside down.
I use health as an example because in the public accounts committee some months ago we dealt with the Department of Health and its supply of services to natives and aboriginals.
We found, for example, and this is no fault on the aboriginals but certainly every fault on the Department of Health, that they were approving payment of bills submitted to them by dentists and so on in amounts 40 times greater than the provincial amount approved for these procedures. A multiple of 40 is the mark-up that some dentists have been putting on some treatment, sending the bill to the federal government for payment and it was being paid without even a question.
The provincial governments have been trying to husband their health resources and scrutinizing the bills and saying they feel this is about the amount they are prepared to pay for this procedure. For the federal government there is no limit to what it is prepared to pay, even 40 times the regular amount. If we wanted to take $55,000 out of health in the estimates today because we should be paying only the appropriate amounts rather than these exorbitant amounts, it would cause the President of the Treasury Board to move a motion to concur in the entire amount. Once we have voted for the entire amount, how can we turn around and say that we want to change our minds and vote for something less? It makes an ass of the system.
I am sorry to use something that may be close to unparliamentary language, but I am talking about the system, not a member, although that sometimes is open for debate.
Let me use another example, which is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Again I think about our committee, the public accounts committee, where the auditor general pointed out to us a problem that he found regarding a water treatment system on one reserve in the province of Ontario. The water treatment plant, according to the consultant, could be fixed for $26,000. But by the time the job was done, and it was not done properly, the bill was over $2.3 million. There is no control. If we wanted to remove that amount from the estimates we could not do it. That is a serious problem that we have with the main estimates as they are presented and with the process.
The finance department will spend approximately $45 billion a year on interest on our national debt. Because that is deemed to be statutory spending, as I referred to earlier, we cannot vote on one single penny of that $45 billion. Surely it is the House that is supreme and it is the House that has control of the public purse. We thought we had control of the public purse, but obviously the House does not have control of the public purse.
Therefore, my question is: Where do we go from here? The good news is that there is an answer. The answer lies, in my opinion, in the report that was tabled in the last parliament, called “The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control”. It was an all-party committee chaired by the deputy whip of the government. It dealt with a lot of the problems I have raised here today. This report, which one eminent person called the best report on parliamentary procedure in 50 years, deserves a great deal of consideration by the House.
I believe that 52 recommendations were made. I will just mention one or two of them to give hon. members an idea of how “The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control” report dealt with these issues.
It recommended that a committee be set up to monitor and review the estimates and the supply process. That is just a simple recommendation to say this asinine procedure of putting the cart before the horse should stop and we should get it back to the right way. That way the House will be able to express its opinion on how to change the estimates.
It said that the standing orders should be amended to create a standing committee on the estimates with a mandate to monitor and review the estimates, the supply process and related matters and that the work of the standing committees on the estimates be referred to them. That way we would be able to ensure that the committees that deal with the estimates would be dealing with them in an appropriate fashion and bringing back to the House appropriate recommendations based on all parties' opinions as to what they thought of the estimates.
It goes on to say that a standing committee on the estimates should be specifically empowered to report to the House on the estimates and on the supply process at least on an annual basis. We want to ensure, again, bringing back to the House the authority and the primacy that the House is the granter of supply to the government.
The committee went on to recommend that the standing committee on the estimates be authorized to undertake periodic reviews of the mechanism used by crown corporations to report to parliament and the adequacy of the means by which they receive appropriations from parliament. That is an excellent recommendation.
It goes on to talk about how in this day and age, when we know that people want to spend all of the budget rather than achieve their objectives within budget, the parliamentary committees should be allowed to move up to 5% from one allocation to another. That makes common sense today when we hear so much about wastage and balloon budget spending toward the end of the fiscal year.
I could go on and on about the problems related to the business of supply and how the subcommittee on the business of supply dealt with the issue on a constructive, all-party basis that had the unanimous support of all parties in the last parliament.
It is high time this government and this parliament realized that Canadian taxpayers deserve much better and that this report needs to be adopted. The recommendations contained in the report need to be adequately considered, rather than being put on the shelf. I seriously hope this government will ensure today that we look at this report and adopt the recommendations contained therein.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion No. 1, through which the President of the Treasury Board seeks to grant a vote of over $193 million to the Department of Justice.
I wish to inform the House that the Bloc Quebecois opposes the vote proposed by the President of the Treasury Board for the Department of Justice, for a number of reasons.
Since the opening of the parliamentary session in September, the government's justice policies have often been criticized by opposition parties and by Canadians and Quebeckers, who are tired of seeing their tax dollars being used for objectives that do not meet their needs.
The government has been turning a deaf ear for a long time. It runs the country as it pleases, without listening to what taxpayers have to say.
The Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance are the only ones to set priorities, and these priorities do not at all serve the interests of those most in need. Because of the government's way of managing, an increasing number of our fellow citizens have difficulty making ends meet.
The Liberal government's priorities are very poorly defined. The measures taken by the Department of Justice are a perfect illustration of the Liberals' bankruptcy.
For example, by going ahead with its reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, in spite of all the opposition to such a measure, the Liberal government showed that it is prepared to blindly spend public money, against the interests of Canadians and particularly of Quebeckers.
Quebeckers unanimously opposed the decision of the federal Minister of Justice because, among other reasons, the issue does not concern the federal government but Quebeckers, who alone must decide on their future.
The reference to the supreme court is a prime example of how public money is wasted. What are we to think of the comments made by the Minister of Justice, to the effect that her government's representations to the supreme court are useless? Indeed, while the lawyer representing the federal government was pleading before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Minister of Justice said that, in any case, this exercise was useless. She said the process was unnecessary.
In fact, the minister is quite right in saying that the nine judges appointed to the supreme court will be unable to resolve the problem of Quebec sovereignty, because it is up to Quebec, in all legitimacy, to decide on its own future.
By admitting to the media that the reference is pointless from the constitutional point of view, the Minister of Justice was adding insult to injury. In addition to denying the right of the people of Quebec to self-determination, this reference is a total waste of public funds, and the federal government ought to be ashamed. This is one of the reasons for our opposition to the $193 million-plus the President of Treasury Board has given to the Department of Justice.
In addition, it must not be thought that the funds committed to this political waste are coming solely from the coffers of the Department of Justice. People must be aware that the Privy Council, and the departments of Canadian Heritage and of Finance, are all very actively involved in the reference. We must not, therefore, be surprised to learn that the bill is a lot stiffer than the Minister of Justice suggests in her answers to questions in committee.
Funding of the reference to the supreme court comes not only from Justice, but from other departments as well. It is virtually impossible to know which departments have spent money on the reference to the supreme court, but we do know that millions of dollars have been spent on it. Members will therefore understand that, when we are presented with a bill for $193 million, the Bloc Quebecois is against it, knowing what the money is going for.
The supreme court reference on Quebec's right to be the only one to decide its future proves to us, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Liberal government holds the democratic rights of Quebeckers in complete contempt. Unfortunately, the sombre list of Liberal nonsense does not end there.
The reference is not the only example of the profound malaise on the Liberal benches. In introducing her strategy for the renewal of the youth justice system recently, the Minister of Justice demonstrated again that her government was light years removed from the needs of its people, and especially light years away from what Quebec wants.
The reform of the Young Offenders Act, which, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, is to calm misinformed public opinion, is another example of poor management of public funds. As the primary stakeholders in the field of juvenile crime pointed out, the Young Offenders Act is sufficient. It needs only be properly applied. The problem is not the act, as I have said, but its application.
Quebec, whose youth crime rate is the lowest in Canada, sets an example for all Canadians in its application of the law. Instead of encouraging the other provinces to follow Quebec's example, the minister embarked on a costly reform that will not serve society's interests.
Instead of following Quebec's lead and intervening in the reintegration and rehabilitation of young offenders, the Minister of Justice has opted for stigmatization and easy votes in western Canada. Quite honestly, this is not a judicious use of public funds, of the taxes paid by Quebeckers and Canadians alike.
The minister took the easy way out by ignoring the advice of experts in this area as well as that of her predecessor. The minister's predecessor, another Liberal justice minister, was also involved in this, but he did not share the current minister's opinion.
As evidenced by the following remarks, the current Minister of Health and former justice minister repeatedly spoke in favour of the existing legislation.
For the benefit of the people listening to us, I shall quote him. The minister said “The government continues to believe the youth justice system is a valid one and supports it. The Young Offenders Act as it exists at present is more than sufficient, if properly administered, to deal with juvenile justice in the country.” That is what the then Minister of Justice, now health minister, said at the time about the Young Offenders Act.
Yet, the current minister is nevertheless going to legislate on the basis of an unfounded public perception fostered by the Reform Party. In addition, the minister indulges in unjustified spending, while her government owes the Government of Quebec $77 million for the implementation of the Young Offenders Act. The Quebec justice minister repeatedly asked that the costs associated with implementing the act in Quebec be reimbursed to Quebec.
Quebec is home to approximately 25% of all young Canadians, while in terms of funding it receives only 18% of the federal budget for implementing the Young Offenders Act.
I personally questioned the minister on this, given how unfair this is to Quebec, which has been requesting funding for years, and in light of the fact that the predecessor of the current Minister of Justice all but admitted this money was owed to Quebec.
When he is asked to justify this imbalance, his response in committee is that Quebec got less because it had placed the emphasis on rehabilitating young offenders and these measures were less costly than the measures involving incarceration which were used by other provinces.
I find this answer rather fascinating. Since the objective of the Young Offenders Act is reintegration into society, I would have thought the province best applying the act would get more money, but the opposite is true. In Quebec we are penalized because we are implementing an act passed by the federal government; however, the western provinces, which have focussed on structures and on locking people up, will get more money, because that approach is more costly.
There is something illogical about this, and members will understand that, when one sees the Department of Justice spending the $193 million it will be getting via supply, why the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree with this, given that these monies are mismanaged and misspent by a minister concerned only with raising her profile and getting easy votes in the west.
The Department of Justice's strategy on youth crime can, therefore, be summarized as follows. It sets up a new, expensive, and inadequate program; it turns a deaf ear to Quebec, which is implementing the legislation properly; it refuses to reimburse Quebec for doing so.
Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wonder if you would perhaps check if we have quorum or not. After this morning's debate, I am concerned about what is happening.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Just to be clear. Is the hon. member for West Nova requesting a quorum call?
Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, yes I am calling quorum.