Debates of Dec. 16th, 1999

Transitional Jobs Fund

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I ask members to be very judicious in your choice of words.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

The Prime Minister promised the two hotel owners pots of federal cash. They both got it in spite of the fact that those grants broke the government's own rules. Equally amazing, both of these people had very shady pasts.

Think about it, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister assured these characters that they would get government grants. He then forced the human resources minister to break the rules to ensure success.

Why does the Prime Minister's Shawinigan job creation plan involve nothing more than bullying ministers and conspiring with shady characters?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the people who supported these programs: the mayor of Shawinigan; the provincial member, Mr. Pinard, a péquiste and no friend of the Government of Canada; members of the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre; and the Quebec minister of employment.

Is the hon. member suggesting that these people are shady characters?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, they got no money. We know where the shady characters are.

The Prime Minister promised the convicted criminal owner of the Grand-Mère Inn hundreds of thousands of dollars in government grants. The Prime Minister then strong-armed the HRD minister to ignore the government's own rules to ensure that the deal went through. Not coincidentally, the Prime Minister owned a large share of the golf course that neighbours the Grand-Mère Inn. In other words, if the inn does well so does the golf course.

Was it in the Prime Minister's own financial interest that led to irregular grants to the Grand-Mère Inn?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can give a list of a number of people and organizations who have supported these programs.

What is clear from the questions of opposition members is that they do not accept that there are areas of high unemployment in this country. They do not accept, as Canadians believe, that we have a duty to work with those areas, whether it be in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec, in Ontario or even in northern British Columbia.

They do not accept that there is a way for the people of Canada to help those who are less fortunate to benefit from the success of this great nation, but we do.

Bill C-20

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with his bill, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is altering the nature of the supreme court ruling or opinion on the required majority.

Yesterday, we quoted a supreme court decision in which it is stated that all votes must have equal value.

Does the minister realize that, with his bill, he is saying he can decide that one vote has more value than another, something which is indefensible in a democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday.

A referendum is a consultation. A consultation must be evaluated by the political authorities, which must make that evaluation based on various criteria, including the clarity of the question and the clarity of the majority.

For something as serious and irreversible as secession, it is the custom in a democracy to make such a change when there is a consensus in a society to do it.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is saying is that he will not abide by a result of 50% plus one. The Prime Minister said the same thing. He is nodding that he is of the same opinion.

In light of these statements, I say that his vote counts for more than mine, that the vote of a federalist counts for more than the vote of a sovereignist.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

In fact, in all his fine speeches, he keeps telling us that his government will determine the rules once the game is over— Is this what he calls democracy? Really?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the rules for the simple reason that there is no rule on a required majority in a referendum, neither in Quebec's Referendum Act, nor in Canadian federal law.

A referendum is a consultation, and we evaluate its result. If the court insisted on the need for a clear majority by using the expression 13 times, it is because a simple majority of 50% plus one is not enough to break up a country.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs may claim to be clarifying matters, but everything he touches turns to confusion. While he accuses others of ambiguity, he is threatening to trample the basic rules of democracy.

Will the minister admit that the most anti-democratic provision in his bill is the one allowing the federal parliament to determine what constitutes a majority, a provision that Claude Ryan has described as completely ridiculous.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the Government of Canada finds itself both agreeing and disagreeing with Claude Ryan. Mr. Ryan has his own way of thinking.

As for the question, Mr. Ryan suggested that it be adopted by two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly and, as for the majority, on August 21, 1998, Mr. Ryan said “It should require 50% plus one, not of the votes cast, but of eligible voters”.

If the Bloc Quebecois wants to accept these two suggestions made by Mr. Ryan, let it so inform the House. Otherwise, it should quit trying to ride on his coattails. It is a no go.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, Claude Ryan said that the majority provision in the minister's bill was completely ridiculous. That is what he said yesterday.

With the holiday season fast approaching, the minister knows very well that his bill will be the topic of many a family discussion in Quebec. Before breaking, can the minister tell us clearly whether one sovereignist vote is equal to one federalist vote? Can he finally give the House an answer?

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

Mr. Speaker, first it was 1-0, then it was 2-0. Let them pull off three wins in a row and we will talk.

In the meantime, Quebecers think that a clear question would deal with separation rather than vague motions such as sovereignty-partnership. The great majority think that a country should not be broken up over a vote of 50% plus one.

And they think, as the member did when he was at university, that it would be a poor idea to shift northern Quebec's aboriginals from one country to another without even asking their opinion.

Port Of Halifax

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Halifax port is an economic engine for the metro, for the province and for the Atlantic region as a whole. But all of that is threatened.

The transport minister appointed port authority has jacked up the rent of a key terminal operator by 900%. That means that workers will lose jobs, that international shippers will go elsewhere and ultimately the region's economy will suffer.

My question to the minister is simple. Will the transport minister commit today to help resolve this damaging dispute?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware of this dispute. I should tell my hon. friend that this matter is now before the courts. Since legal action has been taken, it would be inappropriate for me to say anything more.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are in this mess because of public policy.

Let me translate the minister's response. The Nova Scotia economy is at risk and the Liberals do not care. That is what we heard the minister say. That is not good enough because 7,000 jobs depend on the Halifax port. We know that number will grow in the coming years but only if the port authority makes decisions that put the community's interest first.

I ask again, will the minister stop making excuses and get on with his responsibility to help resolve this dispute?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be completely unaware of the purpose of the Canada Marine Act which was to transfer the operations of these ports to local bodies, people who reflect the local communities, including representatives from federal, provincial and municipal governments.

The members of that port authority are outstanding citizens. They have the ability to manage the port and to maximize the advantage for the benefit of all people in Nova Scotia and indeed of all Canada. I am sure they are doing that, but we should not go down the route in the House of Commons of arguing about something which is a legal dispute that will be resolved by the courts.

Canada Post

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, three months ago the government said that it would provide Canadians access to all government services and programs on the Internet by the year 2004. The secured channel project, a $5 billion contract to build the electronic gateway, will be one of the largest contracts ever awarded by the federal government.

Is the Minister of Public Works and Government Services aware that André Ouellet, president of Canada Post, is negotiating behind his back with senior officials and ministers that the contract be given to Canada Post without ever going to public tender?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows Canada Post launched its electronic post office two weeks ago in Toronto. Yes, it is in negotiations and the negotiations are ongoing as to whether the government should use part of its system.

Canada Post is a crown corporation and belongs to the Government of Canada. It is normal that there should be some discussion going on.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, typically that explains nothing. Surely the minister is aware of treasury board guidelines requiring all government contracts to go out for a competitive bid unless they meet a very narrow criteria, or unless one's name is André Ouellet.

Will the public works minister direct the president of Canada Post to stop trying to sabotage the competitive bidding process and guarantee that all other Canadian companies will have an equal opportunity and equal chance to bid on this $5 billion contract?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, there is no process. There is no competition out there. There is only discussion.

Instead of asking me to direct the Canada Post president, who is trying to provide a good service for Canadians, the hon. member should tell his lobbyist to stay out of trouble.

Government Grants

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the funding going to the Prime Minister's buddies is in direct contravention of the rules.

It is obvious that the Prime Minister has forced his own Minister of Human Resources Development to break the rules and fiddle the figures.

Does the Prime Minister still believe that he has deceived Canadians by telling them he never benefited from this affair?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see again that the hon. member is absolutely wrong. What we have here is an undertaking in an area of high unemployment with projects that have actually created jobs.

Let me just quote local MNA Mr. Pinard, a député provincial péquiste, who said:

I find it deplorable that rocks are being thrown at Mr. Chrétien for having worked within government programs.