House of Commons Hansard #59 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Jean Dubé Progressive Conservative Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, not once but twice, the Obedjiwan sawmill was refused a grant under the transitional job creation fund by local HRDC offices.
This same sawmill turned to René Fugère, and guess what? A $300,000 grant was approved.
Can the minister tell us why a friend of the Prime Minister has more clout in her department than her own local employees?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I will again read from the letter of recommendation by the riding's MP, a member of the Bloc Quebecois: “For some years now, the Obedjiwan people have shown a desire to take charge of their affairs and to innovate. In this context, one can appreciate the economic impact of creating 100 jobs for these people”.
This is a job creation project, such as are to be found in all ridings. It is an opposition riding, but the Obedjiwan people wanted to take charge of their affairs and have a sawmill and, eventually, their project was approved. And this was a riding represented by an opposition MP.
Jean Dubé Progressive Conservative Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question a second time. Not once but twice the sawmill was refused a grant by local HRDC officials. The same company used up two lifelines. Then it called a friend, a friend of the Prime Minister, and guess what? It received a grant of $300,000.
Can the minister tell us why the Prime Minister's friends have more influence with her department than her own local HRDC office employees?
Human Resources DevelopmentOral Question Period
February 29th, 2000 / 2:55 p.m.
Brant Ontario
Liberal
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the House that in this particular project the application came when funding had been frozen in the province of Quebec because we had a number of projects requiring funding.
As money became available this project was funded because it was a good project. It was supported by the Bloc member and by the Government of Quebec. It was expected to create 62 jobs and it created 66. It gave Canadians in a very remote area the opportunity to work and we support it.
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister pumped $700 million into the environmental agenda. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment tell us how this money will enhance the environment for the people of my riding of Kitchener Centre as well as all Canadians?
Paddy Torsney LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's budget was great news for all Canadians. Significant investments will help develop new technologies to meet the challenges of global warming, creating competitive advantages for Canadian companies. New dollars will enable the government to protect species at risk, to enforce tough new environmental standards and to expand the Great Lakes action program.
The environmental investment provides Canadians with creative, innovative ways to build capacity and generate new incentives to protect our precious environment for all Canadians.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, René Fugère has a remarkable ability to pull money out of many hats. HRDC said that there was no money available for the sawmill but when Mr. Fugère got involved the money suddenly appeared.
Is it not true that when Mr. Fugère shows up on one's doorstep it is the same as a visit from the Prime Minister?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, there was a freeze on moneys available for the province of Quebec. The project was a good project. As money became available we invested in this very rural part of the province of Quebec because the Bloc member said it was a good thing to do, the province of Quebec said it was a good thing to do and the government felt it was a good thing to do. Sixty-six people are working on a very useful undertaking.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Mitis, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's assistant, René Fugère, is under investigation. CITEC is under investigation. There is an investigation in Rosemont into a grant that disappeared into the Prime Minister's riding, and the Placeteco affair surely merits investigating.
With all these cases in the Prime Minister's riding, does the minister not think that an immediate, independent, public inquiry is called for at this time, as the Prime Minister would say?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report again that of the thousands of grants and contributions that we make in communities across this country, they are working. I am also glad to report again to the House that whenever we receive information, either from within the department or outside the department, if there are things that others need to look at, like the police, we send it to the police.
I am glad to report to the House that whenever we find the circumstances for an overpayment, we go after the money and we return it to the Government of Canada.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, students in this country are really hurting. They are facing skyrocketing tuition fees and debtloads that have tripled under the government's alleged commitment to education.
Students were looking for a sign of hope and a dedication of public funds to education in yesterday's budget. They got nothing. They got zero.
How does the finance minister justify giving big corporations and big banks a huge tax break that they do not need while leaving students out in the cold hurting—
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member would call nothing. I would say that increased transfers to the provinces is substantial. The fact is that increased cultural content on the Internet so students can take advantage of it is substantial. Nine hundred million dollars for research chairs and teaching chairs so the universities can provide a decent education is substantial. Increasing the tax exemption for scholarships and bursaries from $500 to $3,000 is substantial.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of ACOA, and it is not about Viagra, but I do hope that he is going to get straight up and answer the question.
My question is about a business in my greater riding and it has to do—
AcoaOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. This is one question we all want to hear.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, a company in my greater Saint John area applied to ACOA for $500,000 and it was putting up $385,000 of its own money. It was okayed by the local office but when it came here the company was told it had to take $1 million. What did Ottawa want it to do with the other $500,000, send in a contribution?
This is wrong and I want the minister to tell me why this was done.
George Baker LiberalMinister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)
Mr. Speaker, these are certainly times of rising expectations as far as ACOA is concerned.
I will tell the hon. member about the ACOA management. Prior to 1993 the auditor general and the public accounts showed some pretty bad investments. However, after 1993, according to the auditor general, now we have as good as or better a record than the chartered banks under the Liberal administration. That is thanks to the good management of the government.
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
Mr. Speaker, to begin with I will quote Marleau-Montpetit, which will set the tone of what I have to say.
On page 968 of Marleau-Montpetit it states:
—a Member may not make material changes in the meaning of what was said in the House.
It goes on to say:
The editors may likewise alter a sentence to render it more readable but may not go so far as to change its meaning. Editors must ensure that the Debates are a faithful reflection of what was said;
It then goes on to say:
Substantial errors, as opposed to editorial changes, must be brought to the attention of the House by a means of a point of order, as soon as possible after the sitting,
On page 769, it says:
A Member may correct the record of his or her own statement, but may not correct that of another Member.
I will not be long but I think that the matter is important. I would like to quote, in part, the Prime Minister from yesterday. This was in response to my supplementary question.
The Prime Minister said:
I would like to inform the House of Commons that in the case of the riding of Vancouver Island North the riding of the member has received $52 million in HRDC grants.
He then goes on to say:
These are good programs that we have put in his riding despite perhaps his opposition because those people do not want us to help the poor and the needy. Hansard then says:
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
Some hon. members
Oh, oh.
I find no fault in what Hansard said yesterday but what bothers me is what came down in the blues. If you will just bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I will make that, I think, clear to you.
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to keep in mind that a member may correct only what he says but not what somebody else says.
When I received the blues yesterday my staff noticed that, in the first sentence that I quoted, the words “the riding of the member” were not included. The Prime Minister's statement was altered to remove the words “the riding of the member”. As well, the word “his” in the sentence “these are good programs that we have put in his riding” was changed to “this”.
My staff informed the folk at Hansard that the blues were not an accurate reflection of what was said in the House. What was said in the House was quite clear.
My concern is that the blues, as we received them, were inaccurate and a gross misrepresentation of what the Prime Minister said, and if my staff had not been vigilant and had not taken the time to read that, an incorrect version of what was said in the House would have appeared in Hansard .
That bothers me because I do not think it should be my job or the job of my staff to review what somebody else is saying on the record in this place and yet it seems that is the case. I would like to know how that error, an error of that magnitude, could be made in the blues which we received, because that would have been the official record as I understand it if we had not been brought it to the attention of House personnel.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
As I understand it, the blues are a first pass or first cut if you will and notwithstanding the fact that I am glad that the hon. member did take the time to make the correction, at this point at least I am not sure that the correction would not have been made when you put the words which were recorded in juxtaposition. We have a recording of what was said and we have it on television.
It is conceivable that it would have been caught along the way, but I thank the hon. member for bringing it to my attention. We must be ever vigilant when this type of thing happens. I believe his intention was to be of service to the House and I take his representation as such. I thank him very much.
John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification on the discussion we have just had. When someone asks a question in question period and there is a response, normally the questioner gets the blues for the question in his or her office. Unless we make a special request we do not often get the answer. We just get the question the individual asked. This leads to a potential vacuum.
As a matter of standard practice it might actually be a more suitable arrangement to provide both ends of the dialogue to both parties so that there is a natural check and balance on that process. I am wondering if that request would be appropriate.