Debates of June 8th, 2000

Supply

[An hon. member]

They are used for interference.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think before such comments are made, an effort should be made perhaps to not play the looking glass game.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie that it is not my practice to refer to my colleagues, including himself, in disrespectful terms.

We are in opposition to one another. We hold divergent opinions on the future of Quebec and Canada. I was pointing out that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the architect of plan B must indeed count on the Canada Information Office to implement his plan B.

It is one of the tools for plan B, which seeks to block the march of Quebecers toward sovereignty, but not with much success. In the weeks, the months and the years to come, we will see how this strategy used by the minister, the Prime Minister and all those who shared that vision, how that way of planning Canada's future, of imposing certain views about the future, will not produce the results anticipated by those who came up with that idea of a plan B, at the expense of plan A, which was based on reconciliation.

The slippery slope, and I say this with all due respect for the member for Brossard—La Prairie, is the one used by the Canada Information Office, the one which consists in buying off people with contracts, in making friends by awarding contracts, in wooing them, in getting them to promote Canadian unity by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes even millions of dollars. That is the slippery slope in democracy.

By contrast, we sovereignists in Quebec cannot be criticized, because we have legislation respecting the financing of political parties whereby individuals and, more recently in our case, businesses can only contribute a maximum of $5,000 to help and support parties that promote sovereignty.

Let me tell the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie and all the Liberal members that the slippery slope, the dangerous thing to do is to use public funds for promotion and, indeed, propaganda. We are not afraid to say it and we will continue to show how the awarding of contracts is closely related to how those who get these contracts contribute money to the Liberal Party to campaign and stay in office.

But this party will not remain in office for long with practices that show so little respect for the public. Canadians must be better represented here than they are by the Liberals, who want to help their friends and make this government one that helps its friends.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great attention what my honorable colleague just said. I must say that I was surprised by the tone he used when he spoke of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, because I know that it is not the tone he usually uses.

I find it absolutely fascinating to hear the hon. member talk about propaganda whereas I just said, and he may not agree with me, that informing the public about government activities is an indispensable condition of democracy.

If a government does not explain to the public what it is doing, it lacks openness. If a government does not explain to the public what it is doing, it is not providing people with the means to avail themselves of all the programs and services that are available to them. If a government does not explain to the public what it is doing, it prevents people from knowing what it is the government is doing with their tax money.

I repeat, informing the public is a basic principle of democracy. I would like to know if members opposite agree or not with this principle. I would like to know if they think that any information coming from the government is necessarily propaganda, but when but when it is condemned by the opposition doing its job as the opposition, it becomes legitimate information.

I would like to know where this double standard is coming from.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. He asked where this double standard is coming from.

If, as he claims, the government must absolutely explain everything and inform the public about the achievements of the greatest government of the best country in the world, is it only Quebecers who do not understand and need to be informed? Why is all this information from the best and greatest government in the world targeting Quebec only, and why are nine provinces spared this propaganda?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague had been kind enough to listen when I was speaking—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

If he takes the time to read the official transcript of my speech, he will find that I gave many examples that apply to the country as a whole.

The 1-800 number is not for Quebec alone. The Y2K bug workshops were not for Quebec alone.

His question is warped and self-serving, and I condemn it for what it is.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Repentigny.

I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion, and to have the opportunity to shed some light on a few things. Of course, I appreciate the efforts made by the member who spoke before me to try to justify the government's approach, and try to explain why using taxpayers' money to its own ends, through the Canada Information Office, was a good thing. My hon. colleague did what he had to do, but his arguments were not very convincing.

I have to say that not only the sovereignist party, but also the other opposition parties support the motion. Well, the New Democratic Party has decided to support the Canada Information Office. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle spoke for this party. Unfortunately I must point out—and this somewhat weakens his argument and the position of the New Democrats—that this member's name can be found on a list of people who received grants from the Canada Information Office in 1997. It is obviously hard to speak out against something from which one is benefiting personally.

If indeed the New Democratic Party wants to associate itself with this propaganda tool known as the Canada Information Office, I would have thought that parliamentary ethics would have at least prompted one of the member's colleagues to take the floor.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

I am not in the habit of interrupting people when they speak and I would like to be able to continue.

I wish to say that the Canada Information Office is the ideal place to spend money without worrying about the rules. Most of the CIO's contracts go out untendered. That is a fact. It is not something I made up. If it were, the members opposite would be on their feet immediately. During Oral Question Period, the government would have said “That is not true. You are mistaken”.

But no, there is no denying that most of the contracts awarded by the CIO, which were paid for by the public and which should normally go out to public tender, because that is the ethical way of spending taxpayers' money, were not put out to tender. That is a fact, not idle speculation. That is a verifiable fact .

The second point I would like to make is that not only were contracts awarded without calls for tender, but they were awarded primarily to Liberal Party buddies. This also is a fact. I challenge anyone on the other side of the House to put generalities aside and prove me wrong.

Here is a partial list of contracts awarded by the Canada Information Office: BCP, headed by John Parisella, the former executive assistant to Robert Bourassa, former Liberal Premier of Quebec, Administration Leduc et Leblanc, the famous firm where Judge Mongeau worked, an administrative office connected with a firm of lawyers, as is generally the case, but which did communications contracts. We will come back to this.

I like lawyers and respect them. But as communications experts, they sometimes leave something to be desired. The list of contracts also includes the firm GPC, headed by Rémi Bujold, a former secretary of state of the Liberal government and a generous contributor to the Liberal Party. And the list is growing. The paper and notes I have here refer throughout to people close to the Liberal Party.

So, contracts were awarded with public money and without tender, that is, contrary to the rules, contracts were given to good government buddies and contracts were given to firms whose connection to the mandate given them is not always obvious.

In fact, I mentioned Administration Leduc et Leblanc. An honourable judge has just been appointed by the government, a man who was at the same time the lawyer, the legal adviser, for the Canada Information Office, with an annual salary of $192,000. That is not exactly peanuts. It is more than he is currently making as a judge.

This same gentleman collected $40,000 worth of travel expenses in a year. One would imagine he travelled up to Ottawa every morning and back to Montreal every evening, ate in the best restaurants, and managed to do errands in town between the two.

This is also someone with a lot of communications contracts from the CIO. We have checked it out. I challenge my friends over there to prove me wrong.

We have checked it out. We called communications firms, because we have connections with some. There are a lot involved in government work. “Are you familiar with a communications firm called Administration Leduc et Leblanc?” we asked them. Not a soul in Quebec, not a single person in communications, knows the communications firm Administration Leduc et Leblanc. Not a single communications specialist in Quebec, in Montreal, knows this firm, but the Minister of Public Works did.

Or at any rate, he knew Mr. Mongeau. Knew him so well that they appointed him to a judgeship, this Mr. Mongeau, who was on the Liberal Party's legal commission, a close buddy since way back, someone close to the seats of power. On top of his $192,000 annually as legal adviser to the Canada Information Office, on top of his $40,000 in travel expenses for that same year, he was doing communications. He fixed up the commas and periods in the CIO's documents. That is ridiculous.

My colleague from Chambly asked the government a question “Is it normal to award a contract of x thousands of dollars to someone who will report back as follows: We have fixed up the commas, periods and spelling errors in this or that document?” What is more, this will be over the signature of a lawyer who works for the Canada Information Office, who is a legal adviser to the RCMP, who had major civil cases going on at the same time, and who did $40,000 worth of travel in a year, at 38 cents a kilometre. The man worked 28 hours a day; there can be no other explanation.

If this is not going overboard in using public funds for partisan purposes, what is it?

There is a fourth element. Not only does the CIO award contracts without going to tender, not only are these contracts awarded to buddies, not only are they awarded to people who do not have the skills to fulfil them, but the CIO creates files.

Thanks to the insight of the hon. member for Chambly, we have discovered that the CIO has created files in which we find the names of the most famous journalists on Parliament Hill. I was able to find out, because I am nosy and I admit it, which journalists are considered good or bad journalists by the government.

I was able to see that some journalists are considered harmless. They report the facts. They are objective. Others are good because they promote the views of the government on Quebec's sovereignty. They will probably get the government's press releases during the next referendum.

There are also bad journalists. They are those who do not accurately reflect the views of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. They interrupt him. They sometimes use irony. All this information is on the CIO's files.

I will conclude on that note, because I want to leave the floor to my colleague. We cannot accept that such an office continues to exist at the expense of the taxpayers, of our viewers.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but respond to the criticism of my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle by the hon. member from the Bloc. It had to do with when he was not a member of parliament doing work representing the province he had lived in for years. Having been here in parliament years before representing that province, my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle could make a very good point of how westerners view Canada. My colleague from the Bloc indicated a lucrative contract to be something less than $5,000, because the contract ended before the full year was up.

Ideally the government should be looking across Canada to get ideas from all regions as to what is better for Canada. It should not be looking just to people within Quebec or Liberal supporters; ideally it should be looking to all areas of Canada.

He should not question the credibility of my colleague or the position of the NDP. There is no question that the New Democratic Party believes in Canada. As westerners we have fought very hard to continue to have a Canada that is united from coast to coast to coast. We are not like the Quebec separatists who say anybody who does not agree with the separatists or the Bloc are undemocratic, that if people do not agree with the Bloc then they are traitors to Quebec.

Westerners have learned to fight. We believe in Canada and we are not giving up on Canada.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not wish to upset the hon. member, but I have no choice but to dot the i 's and cross the t 's, and to do it now. I am going to explain something.

I am not calling the member's credibility into question. On the contrary. He is very credible when he defends the CIO; he works for it. I will merely say that, unless the figures I got from the CIO are not accurate, this member was paid $7,200 for work done between November 10, 1996 and November 10, 1997.

These are the figures from the CIO. They are clear and they cast doubt on the impartiality of someone who rises in the House and says on behalf of a supposedly puritan political party that they agree with the CIO. I guess so, since he works for it.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want the hon. member to listen very clearly. He referred to my name and said that I worked for the Canada Information Office. That is not true.

What the Bloc Quebecois supplied me with was information from the freedom of information office. At one time I did a small contract for it, before the last federal election. If those members were to read their own information, they would see that it is marked with an asterisk and states:

As some contracts are `as and when requested', the actual expenditure can be lower than the value of the contract.

That was certainly the case in my situation. I did nothing for that office after the writ was dropped on April 27, 1997. I resent the implication that I did something after that and the absolute untruth that I am now doing some work for the Canada Information Office. That is not true. I expect the hon. member to get up and apologize to me for that.

[The Speaker]

This would probably come under the heading of debate. One member says one thing and another member says another. You are both looking at the same set of facts and you are interpreting facts as you will.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say that there is no ambiguity. Let us be clear.

I did not say that the member worked there now. If it sounded like that, it is not the case. I said he worked there, and I gave the dates and amounts, between November 10, 1996 and November 10, 1997 for $7,200. That is exactly what I said and if it was not what was understood I repeat that that was what the documentation from the Canada Information Office said and, as for all the rest, I did not wish to say anything more than that.

[The Speaker]

Instead of resuming the debate for now—I think it is the member for Repentigny's turn—we could perhaps proceed to Statements by Members. This will give us a chance to hear one or two more.

Gulf War Sickness

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, after tremendous public display of remembrance, respect and gratitude for our Canadian war veterans with the recent repatriation of the Unknown Soldier, Canadians wonder why the government is doing so little to address gulf war sickness which plagues our Canadian troops today.

A recent British report has clearly and positively recognized that the disease is real. In addition, the Minister of National Defence recently stated publicly that the Canadian forces members who have loyally served their country in war zones must be fairly treated.

Currently, military personnel who have the disease are being released under 3B, which is a release for medical reasons not attributed to the Canadian forces. This means officers are being dismissed with no benefits. I ask, is this treatment fair?

I strongly urge the Liberal government to address gulf war sickness as other countries are now doing and provide the Canadian forces with fair and equitable treatment and access to benefits.

A&E NETWORK CANADA

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize A&E Network Canada and its cable in the classroom programming.

On Sunday, May 28 I had the privilege of being the keynote speaker at the seventh annual A&E Canadian Teacher Grant Awards in Toronto. This grant award program recognizes Canadian teachers who apply innovation in the classroom and rewards them for creative and enriching methods of instruction inspired by A&E productions.

This year's award recipients are: Monique Martin of Saskatoon, Mark Bridges of Kitchener, Patricia Elliott and Dale Mays of Barrie, and Carol White of Kingston. These teachers are to be commended for their dedication to their students and their craft. The award winning submissions inspired CD-ROMs, web based communications, documentaries, an art exhibit in support of a soup kitchen, and even the re-creation of a medieval feast.

A&E's cable in the classroom programming offers teachers an excellent tool to open the door to creativity. Congratulations to A&E Network Canada on its leadership and also its vision in recognizing teaching excellence.

Prison Pen Pals

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, how would you like a new pen pal to correspond with on the Internet? Maybe an armed robber. Or perhaps you would prefer a rapist or an American murderer waiting on death row. It will be free to you and will only cost the convict $30 a year to post his photo and a brief and no doubt very sympathetic biography. The small fee even lets inmates post a short message, perhaps looking for legal advice, a delightful flirtation, or maybe even more.

The prisoners get a birthday card, a holiday card and two newsletters a year so they just do not feel bad while serving their time for destroying somebody else's life and imposing a life sentence of pain on the victim's families and friends. They can even get a T-shirt or a mouse pad emblazoned with the web site's logo.

Today's lesson for the solicitor general is: prison is supposed to be about punishment and rehabilitation, not special perks and privileges that most families cannot even afford for themselves or their children.

Thyroid Month

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that June is Thyroid Month in Canada.

Over one million Canadians of all ages suffer from some form of thyroid disease. Undiagnosed and untreated, thyroid troubles can often lead to serious physical and emotional problems. Women are five to ten times more likely than men to be affected.

The Thyroid Foundation of Canada has 23 volunteer chapters throughout the country. This organization provides information and support to thyroid disease sufferers and their families.

It also promotes public awareness of thyroid disease through publications and information meetings at the community level right across the country.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House to join with me in wishing the Thyroid Foundation of Canada all the best on its 20th anniversary.

Oceans Day

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Canadian Environment Week and today is International Oceans Day. I should like to take this opportunity to remind all hon. members and all Canadians of the great importance of the environment and oceans.

Oceans day was first declared on June 8, 1992. It inspires and challenges us to become caretakers of our ocean environment. The earth summit created a greater awareness of our ecology and our environment. This awareness extends to marine life in our oceans.

Regardless of where we live we must respect oceans, for what happens in the marine environment affects us all and what we do affects the marine environment.

International Children's Games

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the spirit of amateur sport has taken hold in Hamilton. Just last week over 150 people met in my riding to discuss the future of sport with the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport. This event took place as the final preparations were being made for the International Children's Games that are being held next month in Hamilton from July 1 to 7.

The International Children's Games is the single largest sporting and cultural event for youth anywhere in the world. This year an amazing 32 countries and approximately 2,000 Olympic hopefuls between the ages of 12 and 15 will be competing in nine events.

Sports should be part of every child's life because they help them acquire confidence in themselves and develop a sense of pride in their achievements. Sports also teach them important Canadian values such as team spirit, fair play and honesty. The friendships made during these seven days will last a lifetime.

I encourage all members to join me in wishing the athletes success in their games.

The Environment

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I asked the Minister of the Environment he could not name one reserve where they had fixed the water supply.

The auditor general blew the whistle three years ago on how a $26,000 water problem became a $2.3 million bungle, and the problem still was not solved. How many more millions will it take to solve even that problem?

We support clean water for all Canadians. We are prepared to pay for clean water for all Canadians, but what we cannot support is the gross incompetence of the government when it spends $2.3 million and still has not fixed a $26,000 problem.

The government is tired, irresponsible and needs to clean up its act, not just the water supply on reserves.

Nuclear Energy

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is Environment Week and the announcement by the Ukrainian government that the Chernobyl nuclear plant will finally be shut down as of December 15, 2000 is wonderful news.

With countries the world over, even the heaviest users of nuclear power, questioning this kind of energy and planning to progressively dismantle power plants, Canada is stubbornly promoting nuclear power as a source of energy, selling Candu reactors to countries that lack the resources we have to manage them, and blindly pursuing its plan to import Russian and American MOX fuel in order to burn it in the Chalk River power station.

At a time when the promotion of renewable energies such as hydro, solar and wind charger systems is vital, will the government finally listen to the great majority of the public, stop its nuclear journey and at last begin really promoting real renewable development?