House of Commons Hansard #49 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was relationship.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during the meeting of the legislative committee considering Bill C-20, the government majority refused to allow the committee to travel throughout Quebec and Canada, despite the unanimous protests of the four opposition parties.
How can the Prime Minister justify this refusal, when the four opposition parties represent 62% of the population and are demanding that the committee be allowed to travel throughout Quebec and Canada?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, not all committees have to travel.
I want to remind the House that, in the debate on the constitutional amendment with respect to linguistic school boards in Quebec, Bloc Quebecois members did not want to have a single witness—
Jean Chrétien Liberal Saint-Maurice, QC
Their own leader said, “Today, the federal government tells us this was not enough”, referring to consultation.
The minister in Quebec City, Jacques Brassard, who did not want a committee, said that this was a diversionary measure, a stalling tactic. He did not want to hear a single witness.
In this case, 45 witnesses will appear before the committee.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is forgetting one thing. The National Assembly was unanimous on the school board issue. People were calling for change, which is far from being the case now, because all parties in the National Assembly are opposed to Bill C-20. The four opposition parties in this House are asking that the committee be allowed to travel, as the fisheries committee is going to do and as the committee on free trade has already done.
If it is a matter of consensus, are we not starting to see just that with all the opposition parties here and the three parties in the National Assembly?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, when there was a constitutional amendment, the Government of Quebec did not want to hear from a single witness or strike a committee to hear from those who had objections. What is more, I allowed a free vote in the House of Commons. And they are accusing us of being undemocratic? They accused us of being practically traitors because we allowed our members to vote freely on a matter as important as religion.
We have nothing to learn from people who did not wish to hear from a single witness on such a fundamental matter.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claim they are passing Bill C-20 to protect Canadian democracy. They must have a pretty poor idea of what Canadian democracy is, because all that they are doing is preventing it from being expressed.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what his government is so afraid of that it needs to so restrict the time for the committee debate, to limit the number of witnesses and to refuse to go and meet people where they live?
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing antidemocratic about what the committee is doing. On the contrary, I congratulate it on its accomplishments so far.
Forty-five witnesses will be heard. Meanwhile, the members of the opposition across the way, who claim to be in favour of democracy, were spending their time trying to table press clippings in the House of Commons, instead of engaging in any real debate on this bill.
The government has acted in a reasonable manner. It is doing the right thing. The members across the way know that very well.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, one might well wonder which government it was that imposed a gag order on this House during the second reading of a bill of such importance to the future of the people of Quebec.
Should the Prime Minister not just admit that, if he refuses to allow the committee to travel to Quebec and to the rest of Canada, it is because he knows that the people of Quebec are opposed to his bill and that his government is not fit to show its face anywhere in Canada because of the terrible way it has managed public funds at Human Resources Development Canada?
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, that was quite a leap.
The hon. member opposite just said the government imposed a gag order. Need I remind the House that the government has offered to extend the time, but the Bloc Quebecois member rejected that? He did not want to debate the measure.
Finally, in 1997, in an interview on the bill to do away with denominational school boards, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois said that even study by a parliamentary committee would constitute what he called “an affront to the democratic process”. That is what the Bloc Quebecois said—
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will likely—
NewspapersOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister who will no doubt be aware by now that Thomson Newspapers has announced that it intends to sell all its newspapers with the exception of The Globe and Mail .
Given that this raises the alarming prospect of an incredible concentration of ownership in the print media in this country, and given that this issue has been with us since the Kent commission back in 1980-81, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us, whether the government now intends to act in some decisive way before we face the prospect of a virtual monopoly in the print media in Canada.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I think the member for Winnipeg—Transcona would like to have your job.
The problem that the member has mentioned today will be studied by the government. If there is too much concentration in a sector such as this one, probably the government and the House of Commons will have to look into the problem. I thank the member for raising this question.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, the matter may well be urgent. I mean these papers are now for sale.
I would ask the Prime Minister or the minister in charge whether or not the government has a contingency plan to bring in the kind of legislation recommended by the Kent commission almost 20 years ago, to make sure that we are not studying this after the fact and to make sure that we do not have a House of Commons committee looking at the fact that we have a monopoly in the print media in this country.
We want action to prevent that kind of monopoly and we want to know when that will be coming.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is raising a serious problem. Perhaps the committee should look into it right away. I have no objection.
The Standing Committee on Industry could look into the problem of too much concentration in the private sector. Perhaps the committee can look at the possibility of advising the House of Commons on what it thinks we should do with this problem.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Does the minister deny that she knew nothing of the problems in her department prior to the completion of the audit on November 17?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, when I was briefed as the new minister we went through all kinds of issues that are part and parcel of the Department of Human Resources Development. As the hon. member has raised on a number of occasions, we talked about the transitional jobs fund and the transition from that program to the Canada jobs fund.
With reference to the internal audit of 24 different programs in my department, on November 17 the briefing was given to me on that audit.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister again. She should have known that there were problems after that extensive audit and the extensive briefing when the minister's portfolio changed hands.
What we would like to know now is: When did the minister first make known these problems to the Prime Minister or the PMO? When did she do that?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, my first intentions were to understand the issues, to insist on the development of a strong management response to make sure that we had a strategy that was going to fix this problem, and we have done that.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the HRDC audit found that 15% of the grants did not have applications on file. It showed that 87% had no evidence of supervision.
Over the past few weeks bureaucrats have been fanning out across the country desperately trying to create a paper trail. What assurances could the minister give Canadians that while the bureaucrats are trying to rewrite the files they are not rewriting history too?