Debates of Dec. 14th, 1999

Bill C-20

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the publicity the government has released today it describes a referendum as a powerful instrument in a democracy. Yes, when a people expresses itself, that is powerful.

How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs draft a bill that attempts to ensure that a referendum addresses only secession and nothing else, while this is the same person who not long ago was saying that sovereignty, independence and separation were all the same thing?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a powerful instrument. Once it has been used, there is no going back. The electorate must be respected.

Second, the use of the term secession in the question is not necessarily mandatory. There is nothing in the bill requiring that this or that term be used. What it does say is that, in order to be clear, a question must mean that Quebec would cease to be a part of Canada and would become an independent country. It seems to me that this is very reasonable.

Transfers To Provinces

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, December 8, the legislative assembly of New Brunswick unanimously passed a motion calling for the re-establishment of social transfers to the 1994-95 level.

Is the Minister of Finance prepared to listen to his Liberal cousins in New Brunswick and restore transfer payments to their 1994-1995 level in order to ensure that the people of New Brunswick may benefit from better social programs?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize that, including the tax points, or in other words all transfers together, we are already where we were five years ago.

Agriculture

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity of travelling out west with the agriculture committee. In all of those meetings I asked the farmers how many of them had applied for AIDA. All of them put up their hands. I also asked those same farmers how many of them had received money from AIDA. Almost no one put up their hand.

What the farmers said was that they need money and they need it now. Will the agriculture minister please tell us how he will get cash into those poor farmers pockets who were denied AIDA by Christmastime?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that well over 20,000 farmers in Canada have received assistance from AIDA. We understand that not everyone who applied for AIDA met the criteria. We have made changes to AIDA and the net income stabilization program. For 1998-99, the federal government alone has put nearly $1.1 billion, more than was available a year ago, into their hands.

The Environment

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of the Environment.

When the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was passed by this House it included a requirement for a five year review. Will the minister tell us what he plans to do with regard to the review and will he specify the timeline for the review?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. After five years of operation it is time to have a review of the act to see if it can be improved. That will take place starting now and for the next year.

There will be an interactive website, which will allow rural Canadians in particular to take part, and there will be some 17 meetings at urban centres across the country. I trust that within a year it will be possible to report to the hon. member and to the House the results of that review.

Rcmp

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, through access to information I learned that the RCMP now employs 391 paper pushers on the government's fatally flawed gun registration scheme. In the meantime, the solicitor general leaves the RCMP desperately short of police on the street. In B.C., for example, there are 300 full time vacancies and 200 temporary vacancies.

Why is registering grampa's gopher gun a higher priority for the government than real law enforcement?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this government certainly supports real law enforcement. That is why $10 million of extra money was allocated to the E-Division in British Columbia. That is why Treasury Board, along with the RCMP and my department, are evaluating the situation. That is why it was indicated in the Speech from the Throne that this government has a commitment to law enforcement in the country. This government will make sure that public safety is always the number one issue.

Rail Transportation

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, further to the requests made by the Bloc Quebecois through the hon. members for Drummond, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Longueuil concerning a change of schedule for the Montreal-Quebec City line, will the Minister of Transport confirm that the train between Montreal and Quebec City will continue to stop in Saint-Lambert, Saint-Hyacinthe and Drummondville after January 16, 2000?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I already answered the question asked by the hon. member for Beauce, who takes a keen interest in this issue.

As I said, no changes will be made to the VIA Rail schedule.

[The Speaker]

All of us are hoping that we will be getting out in a few days time. I do not know any more than members when the House will recess, but I invite you to a reception this afternoon in my chambers if you have time.

Perhaps we could prepare ourselves a bit for the onslaught that will be coming tomorrow by coming together for a little while.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I seek consent to revert to presenting reports from committees.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

Privilege

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On June 3, 1998, I introduced Motion No. P-24 for the production of papers. I resubmitted it in this session and it is now called Motion No. P-11 and states:

That, a humble address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, correspondence relating, prosecutions and issues related to extradition concerning the bombing of Air India flight 182 in 1985.

I am arguing that a response with the information, the papers I requested, was deliberately delayed and there was an attempt to deliberately mislead me into believing that there were no papers when it is well known that there are papers.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I must have misunderstood. Did the hon. member accuse another hon. member of deliberately misleading him?

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

No, Mr. Speaker. I am not accusing anyone of deliberately misleading me. I would like to explain the process that misled me to believe, which will become very clear in my following sentences.

I have waited 18 months for a response. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told me to withdraw Motion No. P-11. He showed me a return from the justice minister that was the response to Motion No. P-11 saying that there are no papers. The return has not been tabled and the table clerks do not have it.

I have a November 22, 1999 memo from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asking me to withdraw my motion. I regret to conclude that it seems there is a deliberate delay of the response to my request. I have been waiting since 1998. If there was a problem with the reading of my motion, I should have been told long ago. However the motion is clear.

Further, I am seeking your assistance, Mr. Speaker, to dispel my conclusion that I have been misled. Everyone knows there are papers. Why am I the only one, except the parliamentary secretary, to have seen the ministerial return, the response to my motion, indicating that there are no papers?

I have the appropriate citations referring to contempt if you wish me to continue, Mr. Speaker. May I continue?

[The Speaker]

I ask the hon. member for Surrey Central to wrap it up.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I will quote from Erskine May, which describes contempt. It reads:

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

Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 27, citation 97 states—

[The Speaker]

I am aware of the citations without your reading them and of course I am taking them into consideration. On this particular matter I see the parliamentary secretary rising to his feet. Perhaps he could provide some kind of explanation.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we want to take up too much of the time of the House on this issue.

The member made a Motion for Papers many months ago. He appears to have been the author of his own misfortune by withdrawing his notice of motion at the time. As I understand it, he was not aware that he was withdrawing his motion at the time. Regrettably some months passed before he realized he had withdrawn his motion.

In this parliament he reintroduced a motion which when read in the English language clearly requests information related to prosecutions arising out of the Air India tragedy. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, there were no prosecutions arising out of that tragedy.

The member has urged upon the government another interpretation of the English words that he used in his notice of motion. As a result if one were to accept that I am sure, as the member has already admitted, it would take a couple of truckloads to deal with the amount of paper he has requested.

At the end of the day I was not aware that the member was about to rise. I assumed that further discussions would be had in relation to the volume of paperwork he was seeking. I suggest there is absolutely no contempt here at all. There were ongoing discussions until a week or so ago. The member is at least in part misinformed by himself and misrepresented by his own language in his motion.

The government would wish to make every attempt in good faith to respond to his need for papers. I am certainly ready to continue with that at this time.

[The Speaker]

I will rule that what we have here is not a contempt of the House. I would invite the hon. member to do two things.

First, there has been an open invitation to more consultations. He might consider that. However, if he wishes to go another route, I suggest he consult the table officers and he will find there are other avenues open to him to get this type of information.