Debates of March 16th, 2000

Citizenship And Immigration

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Apparently the Mike Harris government in Ontario plans to charge a discriminatory $925 tax to Ontarians who wish to adopt foreign orphaned children.

Can the minister confirm that indeed this is true and whether there is any federal government involvement in this plan to tax Ontarians?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that the first I heard about this was when I read about it in the newspaper. It is federal government policy that immigrant children should not be charged the right of landing fee.

Furthermore, once the new citizenship bill is passed, foreign-born children who are lucky enough to be adopted by Canadian parents will enter Canada as citizens.

Furthermore, I guess I would have to say that first Premier Harris picked on welfare moms, then squeegee kids and now it is foreign orphans. I hope he will reconsider this policy.

Human Resources Development

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the minister refused to answer a serious allegation about a misappropriation of funds in the case of Iris Hosiery of Montreal.

Farmers in my riding are going broke supporting the habits of this minister. Her own department raised the issue of misappropriation in an internal document.

Can the minister tell the House the nature of this alleged misappropriation and has she referred the matter to the RCMP?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has details of an issue that he would like to have referred, then let him bring them forward.

In the case of this undertaking I want to be clear again that the project was supported by the Government of Canada, it was supported by the municipality, it was supported by the Government of Quebec, and at the time it was a Bloc member who was in the riding and he supported it very vigorously.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the Council for Canadian Unity, Gordon Bean, a senior official in the Department of Human Resources Development, wrote in a letter that, despite all the staff available, he felt the objectives on participation could not be met. Nevertheless, the minister paid out $9 million to the Council for Canadian Unity.

Will the minister acknowledge that this money is used only for federal propaganda purposes and to pay off party chums?

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

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we absolutely believe that the right thing to do is provide opportunities for young Canadians to travel the country, to get to know the country so they can understand when they go home to share their experiences with others, their families and neighbours.

We know the members of that party are not interested in that. That is why we are here and they are there.

Canadian Heritage

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, last year, Canadian Heritage did not include the Fête nationale des Acadiens in its calendar of national celebrations.

After pressure from the Acadian community and the SAANB, the Minister of Canadian Heritage apologized and corrected matters. This year, the same problem arose again. This is really scornful treatment of the Acadians.

My question is as follows: When will the Minister of Canadian Heritage settle this problem once and for all?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member, who kindly informed me of the error this week. As soon as he informed me, I corrected it.

Canadian International Development Agency

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister for International Cooperation to provide a list of companies dealing with CIDA that had been audited and paid even if their file was incomplete.

She provided a list of all the companies that had received contracts, without indicating which ones had been paid even if their files were incomplete.

Does the Minister have something to hide? Is she afraid that these companies might include the ones that contributed $695,000 to the party in power in 1997 and 1998?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I am sure, is referring to the CIDA Inc. program. No projects in CIDA are paid without invoices being provided at any time.

Justice

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, each year the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy results in hundreds of Canadian children being born with fetal alcohol syndrome or other alcohol related brain damage. Some provinces have also reported that 50% of the inmates in our jails suffer from this incurable but preventable tragedy.

Can the Minister of Justice advise how the Government of Canada is responding to this very troubling statistic about fetal alcohol syndrome?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me congratulate the hon. member for the publication of his recent book entitled Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: The Real Brain Drain .

As the hon. member has pointed out, fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol defects are completely preventable birth defects. In fact, the young people born with these defects suffer from lifelong health concerns and too many of these young people end up in trouble with the law. That is why my colleague the Minister of Health and I are working together with community groups across the country to better inform and develop—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

Human Resources Development

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hold an HRDC document titled “Urgent Request—Subject: Bas Iris—Transitional Jobs Fund Project”, which states: “Please verify whether or not this is the first time that we have heard about the misappropriation of funds and what have we done/are doing about this allegation?”

The minister is being asked a very straightforward question. There is an allegation in her own department of misappropriation of public funds. We have heard nothing about the result of this. The RCMP have not been called in that we are aware of. We are asking her about the status. We are also asking—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me quote from a letter referencing Manufacturier des Bas Iris from the department, which states:

“In these circumstances, I do not think it necessary to recommend any change to the existing contract”.

The department looked at this and found that a change to the contract was not necessary.

Foreign Affairs

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the 51st state of the U.S., according to a top U.S. defence official. The U.S. is preparing to deploy a national missile defence system, violating the anti-ballistic missile treaty and angering and provoking other powers, and it expects this government to play ball.

Will the government say no to another arms build-up, no to supporting the U.S. missile defence system and insist that this entire matter be brought before the United Nations? Or, is the government indeed comfortable with being called the 51st state?

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the United States has not taken a decision yet to deploy a national missile defence system and Canada has not been formally asked to participate in an NMD system by the U.S. Consequently, it is a completely hypothetical question. We cannot yet take a position. There are still too many unknowns.

I have to add that the U.S. has confirmed that the deployment of a national missile defence system would require a change to the existing anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972. The U.S. is pursuing discussions with Russia on this matter.

Canadian International Development Agency

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has misunderstood my question. I will therefore repeat it.

I was speaking of a list of companies dealing with CIDA that had been audited and paid even if their files were incomplete.

She provided a list of the companies that had received contracts, without indicating which ones had been paid even if their files were incomplete.

Is the minister afraid that these companies might include the ones that contributed $695,000 to the party in power in 1997 and 1998?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as I have said before, no payments are made without supporting invoices. Second, we will not issue final payments to companies that do not submit final reports that are satisfactory. Third, we now have a new method of payment. A company will only be paid if it meets specific results which are agreed to in advance.

I provided the hon. member with a complete list of all companies that received CIDA programs.

Presence In Gallery

[The Deputy Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Seamus Brennan, Minister of State at the Departments of the Taoiseach and Defence and Government Chief Whip of Ireland.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning democracy took a turn for the worse in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. On December 15, 1999, the committee passed the following motion:

That this Committee study and report to the House about a clear and mandatory labelling mechanism for genetically modified organisms.

Contrary to the decision by the committee, the chair, despite our repeated requests, has refused to call the sub-committee on procedure in order to establish a schedule for calling witnesses, drafting a report and so on. In the face of this refusal, I tabled, in February, a notice of motion to have the decision taken by the committee in December 1999 implemented.

This morning, we began the debate on this motion, but after one hour, the question was put on the motion, contrary to Standing Order 116 provides, and I quote:

1. In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Furthermore, at page 855, Marleau-Montpetit, provides:

In general, the rules governing the process of debate in committees are the same as those in the House of Commons. However, the Standing Orders exempt committees from certain rules which apply in the House: those governing the election of the Speaker, the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times a member may speak on an issue and the length of speeches.

The decision by the committee chair contravenes the rules of the House. And yet, Marleau-Montpetit provides on pages 856 and 857, and I quote:

The Chair presides over the deliberations in committee, recognizing speakers and ensuring that the deliberations adhere to established practices and rules, as well as to any particular requirements which the committee may have imposed upon itself and its members.

Although I had not finished speaking, the committee chair, once again contrary to the rules established for the House and for committees, immediately put my motion to a vote. Marleau-Montpetit goes on:

Any ruling of the Chair may be appealed to the committee. There is no appeal to the House on rulings of a committee chair except through committee report.

Generally, if the chair had properly carried out his duty to protect the right of expression of parliamentarians, he would have allowed me to finish my speech, particularly since the committee had never adopted the special rule limiting the duration of interventions and the time allowed to debate a motion.

Mr. Speaker, I once again appeal to your sense of democracy to intervene and put an end to a situation that is, unfortunately, occurring too often in committee.

You need to overlook the rule that you are not allowed to intervene in committee deliberations. There have already been instances of a Speaker intervening in order to put an end to a practice that was jeopardizing members' freedom of expression. I quote Beauchesne, 6th edition, citation 760(4).

760(4). In 1986, after a grievance was raised in the House concerning procedure in a committee, the Speaker undertook to write to all committee chairmen pointing out that when a grievance is not resolved satisfactorily in committee it often results in the time of the House being taken when the grievance is raised in the guise of a question of privilege. ( Debates , December 9, 1986, page 1932).

It is your responsibility, under Standing Order 10, to intervene in order to put an end to such practices. The credibility of the House and of the committees is at stake.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member herself told us in her arguments that the Speaker of the House did not have the authority to reverse a committee decision, except after having received a report from that committee that was tabled in the House. In fact, the member herself indicated that her point of order was clearly not a point of order.

I urge the Chair to be neutral and objective as it always is and to not get into this exercise, since the member herself said that doing so would go against the rules.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I note that the hon. member for Louis-Hébert quoted the big book that we now have, thanks to our clerk and to the other officers at the Table who worked very hard to prepare such a document to help us. But the important thing that she did not read is on page 885, and I believe the Leader of the Government in the House alluded to it in his comments. It reads as follows:

It is not in order for Members to allude to committee proceedings or evidence in the House until the committee has presented its report to the House.

I believe it is important that the hon. member raises these issues concerning the rules in committees after the tabling of a report. Further on, I read the following:

This restriction applies both to references made by Members in debate and during Oral Question Period. If there is an irregularity in the committee's proceedings, the House can only be seized of it once it is reported to the House.

I would hope that after a report, if a problem persists, we will be able, at that time, to raise a point of order.

I want to deal with the other points of order, but first we will hear the weekly business statement. The House leader of the opposition.