House of Commons Hansard #46 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was question.
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, day after day the hon. member is laying eggs with her questions. Furthermore, they are definitely not filled with gold.
On the other hand, if we look at the Globe and Mail and the Reform Party's own chart on the transitional jobs fund it shows that grant approvals under the transitional jobs fund actually went down before the last election. Does this party not believe in its own report? The Reform members do not know what they are talking about.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a shameful record of interfering in HRDC handouts and he does share the blame for this billion dollar bungle.
For example, an HRDC memo directed that Thibault be given money because the Prime Minister asked for it. It says “It is a difficult decision as we depart from regional guidelines. I would like to give another answer but I have no choice”.
How can the Prime Minister justify using public moneys as his private slush fund?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, again the assertions of the hon. member are totally unfounded and incorrect.
Let us understand that she is talking about the transitional jobs fund. There are many partners involved in those projects. In every case the province, the Government of Quebec, has to approve these projects.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, what does the minister mean by unfounded? I read from the memo sent out of her own office. It says “It is a difficult decision as, in the two cases, we depart from regional guidelines. Sometimes difficult choices have to be made but in this case we have to maintain the proposed level of financing. I would like to give another answer but I have no choice. The Prime Minister promised this at a press conference”.
How can the minister stand up and say that these charges are unfounded and blow them off?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about the transitional jobs fund, she will know that the federal government is just but one partner in all those undertakings. She will also know that in every case the Government of Quebec must concur. We know that government is no friend of our Prime Minister.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, we have received the answer of the leader of the government in the House regarding the committee on Bill C-20.
The government refuses to let the committee travel throughout Quebec and Canada. Yet, committees often travel across the country to discuss various issues. I can think of the prebudget consultations, the Nisga'a treaty and the free trade agreement. There was even a committee that visited prisons. Soon a committee will leave to discuss fisheries, and it will even go to Washington.
Why does the government refuse to allow the committee on Bill C-20, a bill dealing with the democratic rights of Quebec, to travel throughout Quebec and Canada to hear what the public has to say?
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member opposite and to his parliamentary leader, the decision in this regard is made by the whole House, but there must first be a recommendation from the parliamentary committee.
I also stated the government's position regarding that issue. We feel that we can adequately deal with this issue right here in parliament, given all the resources available, the broadcasting of committee hearings, the parliamentary resources at our disposal, and we can also deal with all the other important issues—
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have negotiated often enough with the leader of the government in the House to know that, once the government has made a decision, its members toe the line or else they get shoved aside.
In the letter that he sent to us, the government House leader says that the government is convinced that holding hearings in Ottawa will allow the committee to hear quality witnesses, without any waste of time.
What the government is saying to all the groups and individuals who appear before a travelling committee is that it is a waste of time. Is this what the House leader is telling us?
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is hardly in a position to talk about people shoving others aside. As regards this issue, we feel that we have all the resources necessary for that committee to do a good job.
We agree with the broadcasting of committee proceedings. We have already agreed to ensure a good representation of witnesses, without causing delays, and the member should recognize that we are in good company when it comes to not letting a parliamentary committee travel.
Indeed, we need only think about Bill 99, which is now before the Quebec National Assembly—
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the leader of the government that if the committee on Bill 99 is not travelling, it is the fault of the Quebec Liberals.
This government wants to use its bill to give the Government of Quebec lessons on clarity.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How can the government claim to give such lessons in clarity to the Government of Quebec when, in a referendum it is organizing itself on February 27 and 28 regarding the Montagnais in Lac Saint-Jean—
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
I repeat my question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
In a referendum to be held on February 27 and 28 regarding the Montagnais of Lac Saint-Jean, the government is asking two questions that contain nearly 200 words in three paragraphs with reference to an agreement and with a single response choice. Is this the government's clarity?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the question, but I can tell the member that, even if he is right, he cannot shroud the choice of a country in confusion.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the minister insists that all of the information about HRDC grants and contributions on a riding by riding basis is public and that all you have to do is ask.
I am asking on behalf of Canadians who want that information. Will the minister table now the information on the master list of up to date, comprehensive information on grants and contributions? Will she table the master list now?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to convey to the House that there is no master list because grants and contributions change on a day by day basis. We are talking about individual projects that may be approved one day and then completed in a week or a year.
Today in committee I made the commitment to work with members of parliament to ensure that they get the information they want through their local human resources development branch office.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I guess we now know what the minister's notion of efficiency is. Every single Canadian who wants this information should charge around the country and request it on 301 separate ridings. Surely that is part of what is wrong with what is happening.
Would it not be more efficient for the minister to simply table the complete, up to date information in the House of Commons now? Canadians have a right to know. That is what we are here for.
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could make it easy for us all if she would just put a question on the order paper and detail the kind of information that she wants, for what day and for what project. I would be glad to respond to it.
Human Resources DevelopmentOral Question Period
The Speaker
I forgot a question, I am sorry. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is another question about clarity and who can teach whom what.
With respect to the Montagnais referendum, article 8.3 of the proposed agreement, on which the Montagnais are going to vote later this month, defines majority as 50% plus one.
If 50% plus one is good for Newfoundland, if it is good for the Montagnais, why would it not be good for Quebec?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, naturally, in a democracy, the more important the decision, the higher the bar must be set. There is no decision more important than breaking up a country. The bar for making such a decision must be set very high.
In the case of this sort of agreement, as in the case of the Nisga'a, it would not have been 50% plus one at all. Nor is it 50% plus one in Mont-Tremblant.
It would therefore be wrong to reduce democracy to a simple formula of 50% plus one. And this is what the supreme court pointed out in the opinion it released on August 20, 1998.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, departmental officials have confirmed that the minister received extensive briefings when she took over the department in August. The minister's executive assistant also confirmed that an extensive briefing took place in that month. This morning the minister herself confirmed that she received extensive briefings in August. Yet she has stood in the House and repeatedly stated that she knew nothing of any problems until the date of November 17.
Would the minister have Canadians believe that she knew there were no problems in her department until the date of November 17?