House of Commons Hansard #60 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, by adding PLI Environmental to our list of companies being investigated by the RCMP, we now have four grants totaling $6.2 million that are currently under investigation. This is a far cry from the original amount of $251.50.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us if, as of today, there are more than four grants under investigation by the RCMP?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member on a number of occasions has spoken out positively about the work of the government and its grants and contributions. He knows how important it is that we fix the administrative deficiencies in my department so that the programs that have made such a vast difference in his riding can be continued and can be continued well.
Jean Dubé Progressive Conservative Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, I will try again for an answer.
On August 3, 1998 Opitciwan sawmill advised HRDC in writing that it had hired René Fugère, the same René Fugère who is being investigated by the RCMP for being an unregistered lobbyist. He is still not a registered lobbyist.
Has the HRDC minister asked the RCMP to investigate his latest lobbying efforts with the department?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to the Opitciwan sawmill. As I did yesterday, I want to again confirm to the House that this project is making a real difference in a part of the country where unemployment was over 30%. We expected to create 62 jobs and we have created 66. Ninety-two per cent of those employed are aboriginals.
Is the hon. member saying that it was wrong for us to support this program?
Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government has introduced legislation to protect transboundary waters. At present the Minister of the Environment is trying to protect Canada's water resources through a federal-provincial accord aimed at prohibiting bulk water removal from drainage basins.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell the House whether he has reached an agreement with all provinces and territories?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, we do not yet have agreement of all provinces to the accord. However, since last reporting to the House, Manitoba has introduced legislation which is entirely consistent with the accord. In addition, it has taken a position with respect to the Devil's Lake diversion in North Dakota which again supports the approach of the accord. I am hoping that province will quickly come aboard with the accord itself, sign on to the accord and that the neighbouring province of Saskatchewan and Alberta will do the same in support of their fellow prairie province.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the minister's own list tells us that Atlantic Yarn Inc., kind of an ironic name when we think about it, received $1 million from the minister.
We took the minister up on her offer that if we phoned her department we would get more information. Her department says there is no information about this file. But the minister told us that this $1 million created 96 jobs although there is not a shred of paperwork.
There are only three possibilities. Either there is paperwork which the minister's department is withholding, or this is wishful thinking on the part of the minister, or the numbers are pure fabrications. I ask the minister which is it?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this file on behalf of the hon. member.
I want to clarify again that the undertakings in my department are precisely to improve the management of our files so that we can confirm without a doubt to Canadians the appropriateness of the investments we make on their behalf. We know where the money in our investments is going. We know that they are making a difference in the lives of Canadians. But we also know that as a result of this continued line of questioning from members of that party that they do not believe the Government of Canada has any role to play in ensuring that Canadians across the country benefit from our good—
Human Resources DevelopmentOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Stéphan Tremblay Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources Development chose Mr. Champagne to act on its behalf as trustee for a $1.2 million grant, until Placeteco's bankruptcy was settled. It so happens that Mr. Champagne also represents Claude Gauthier, who snapped up the bankrupt company.
Does the minister find it normal for Mr. Champagne to be her trustee and Claude Gauthier's lawyer at the same time?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, these questions have been asked before in the House and I have responded to them. What I can say about this particular undertaking is that it continues to thrive, it continues to employ Canadians and it has new contracts. The investment we made was supported and approved by the Government of Quebec.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, last night I read through the memoirs of Paul Martin, Sr. when he was working on the establishment of hospital insurance, the forerunner of medicare. On the day that it was proclaimed Mr. Malcolm Taylor had this to say: “Paul Martin, like Moses, was denied the opportunity of leading his people into the promised land”. Nevertheless, his dream, the founding of hospitalization, the forerunner to medicare, was now a reality.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. In his budget, why is he now allowing Alberta and Ontario to turn his father's dream into something like a two tier health care nightmare? Why is he not following his father's footsteps and actually doing something to assist medicare and health care in this country?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to do is congratulate the hon. member on his choice of reading material. I would suggest to him that, instead of only looking at the index page, if he read the whole book it would do him an enormous amount of good.
I want to thank the hon. member as well. He has essentially pointed out that health care or medicare is a great heritage of the Liberal Party and we will protect it.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development and it is simple. Will the minister for HRDC tell this House exactly how many HRDC grants are under RCMP investigation?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that out of tens of thousands of projects sponsored by my department, I am currently aware of seven active RCMP investigations and two active police investigations on grants and contributions.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Mitis, QC
Mr. Speaker, you have before you the member for Rimouski—Mitis, who is deeply saddened today.
I want to tell you about an extremely serious situation. I had never ever imagined that such a shameful thing could take place in this archetype of democracy in Canada. Let me explain.
On Tuesday, February 29, 2000, the deputy principal clerk sent a letter to the office of the Bloc Quebecois leader, a letter which I am prepared to table, if you ask me to do so. This letter lists various reasons to support the rejection of 700 motions in amendment tabled by the Bloc Quebecois, at report stage of Bill C-20.
Two of these 700 amendments had not been sent to the Journals Branch, and this was cited to me an example of reasons to reject amendments. I have these two amendments with me.
Copies of these amendments, which bear reference numbers 5180 and 5163, were given to me by the deputy clerk, and I can also table them. Again, these two amendments were never sent by the Bloc Quebecois to the Journals Branch.
Following inquiries by the office of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to obtain clarification and explanation, it was apparently admitted that an administrative error had taken place.
We were told that, because of the large number of amendments tabled, the clerks worked—and this is what it is important that you hear, Mr. Speaker—from the legislative counsel's data bank rather than from the paper copies we tabled.
Given the relationship of confidentiality that must exist between the legislative counsel and the members who ask him to draft amendments—and you know how important this relationship of confidentiality and trust is—this is an unacceptable breach of the rights and privileges of Bloc Quebecois members.
I am truly almost speechless, although I still have lots of energy left to protest this serious breach of democracy.
How does one describe such a serious breach in parliament itself, a place that should be the very embodiment of democracy? We are entitled to ask ourselves some very, very serious questions.
Does the explanation lie in the nature of Bill C-20, which, however much the government protests, focuses exclusively on the future of Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, I appeal solemnly to your sense of justice and objectivity. The nature of your function makes you the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons as an institution and of the members that compose it.
There is no doubt that this is a breach of the fundamental freedom of speech of Bloc Quebecois members and of all members of the House. In this regard, I quote from page 261 of Marleau and Montpetit, which says that freedom of speech is:
—a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.
This action imperils these rights, which everyone recognizes as fundamental. Rejection of amendments we had not even introduced has infringed upon our most basic right, namely our ability as parliamentarians to choose which amendments we wish to introduce or not to introduce.
But there is more. In accordance with the technical advice received from House staff, we submitted a new list of amendments which were again rejected. This constitutes not only an attack on parliamentary privilege, but also, I would add, contempt of the House, because these acts are of such a nature as to directly or indirectly impede the members of the Bloc Quebecois in the performance of their duties.
As Speaker Sauvé stated in a 1980 ruling cited in Marleau and Montpetit, page 67:
While our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.
It is imperative for you to consider that there has been a breach of the privileges of the Bloc Quebecois and contempt of this House.
This situation leads me to wonder about the future, particularly in the days to come when we shall be initiating the debate at report stage of Bill C-20, and about what treatment those of us in the Bloc Quebecois can expect from the House and its staff.
Should you accept my question of privilege, I am prepared to introduce the appropriate motion for the entire matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
I will first hear the government House leader, but I accept the hon. member's proposal to table these documents.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I think the deputy leader of the Bloc Quebecois has brought two different matters to the attention of the Chair.
The first is the fact that her party's amendments were rejected. She is relating the fact that the rejected amendments were in draft form only and had been submitted without her approval it seems. The second is that the legislative counsel in the preparation of bills could, apparently, give information to the staff of the Speaker of the House.
I think these are the two matters raised by the member opposite.
If, Mr. Speaker, those who support you, that is the clerks of the House, rejected on your behalf amendments that were apparently not—and I mean “apparently not”, because I have not seen the documents in question—formally introduced, the matter is a dead issue, in my opinion, since, if the members had no intention of formally introducing any amendments, the fact of having them rejected is of no consequence.
Second, we must take a moment in this whole exercise to look at what we are doing to all those who support us so well in this House.
I say this at all levels for the people working for us. We are creating impossible situations for those working in parliament with results that such impossible situations may cause.
To date, there are on the Order Paper, I think, 406 amendments to a bill of no more than a page and a half in length.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
No, no, it is nobody's privilege and I will get back to this later on. Second—
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
We are not in a dictatorship, here.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. This is a question of privilege that concerns all members and I would like to hear it.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Recently, we had a situation where we had to deal with close to 500 amendments. If I am not mistaken, there were 471, but these amendments concerned a bill that had hundreds of pages.
Now, we are faced with the threat of 1,000 amendments to a bill that is one and a half page long. Those who set the rules of this House—and it is not I, but those who came before me—of this Canadian parliamentary democracy opted for the British model, never intended, of course, for you, me or this House, that the purpose of the report stage of a bill would be to stop the legislative process. That was definitely not the intention of those who made these rules.
By creating such situations, we tax the system in this place to the point where parliament is totally paralysed, and we have to live with the result. The result, according to members opposite—and I cannot even know if the allegation is true or false—is that those who support you are so overburdened by the excess work that, according to the accusers, they are unable to do justice to the Chair regarding this issue.
I do not agree with their analysis, but let us not forget the root cause of what is going on in this parliament. What is going on is that some members want to prevent parliament from legislating, by resorting to tools that do not even exist. Those who want to do that are, in my opinion, doing something totally unacceptable. When I say this, I am not imputing any motives.
