Debates of Sept. 18th, 2000

Public Works And Government Services

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should check the facts. He would realize that there was only one contract at the beginning, which was a pilot project given according to Treasury Board guidelines. All the other contracts were tendered and the best contender got the contract. We have been following Treasury Board guidelines and the public tendering process.

Last spring we had this debate in the House. I tabled a letter where we made it clear to the officials of the Canadian Information Office that anywhere in my department any contract above $25,000—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Charlevoix.

Employment Insurance

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced a one year moratorium for the unemployed in Charlevoix and on the North Shore.

Is the Minister of Human Resources Development proposing a temporary solution to save face before the elections, in order to then continue to give them the shaft after the elections?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. In fact the transition period is over four years. It recognizes that indeed one side of the employment coin has to do with employment insurance, but the other side has to do with diversifying the economy.

I am looking forward to working with my colleague, the minister of revenue, and I hope with members on the opposite side, their constituents and employers, to broaden the economic diversity of that region so that indeed the people of the north shore of Quebec can benefit from the great economy we have here in Canada.

Housing

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today housing activists are building a house at the site of the housing ministers conference in Fredericton, the ministers' first meeting in five years. The message to the ministers is quite clear: This national crisis requires a national solution and restoration of the federal funding for social housing.

Will the Prime Minister direct his ministers today to support the provinces and the municipalities with real bricks and mortar and money to build housing, rather than the straw house announcements and statements we have seen to date? Will we get some real housing programs?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. It gives me the opportunity to inform the House that after question period I will be going to Fredericton to meet my colleagues, all the ministers of housing in the country. Tonight and tomorrow we will be discussing how we can improve the situation and how we can give Canadians some relief and make sure that every Canadian has decent housing.

I look forward to this meeting. It is true that we have not had a meeting in the last five years, but we are glad that we will be there to discuss these important issues.

Transport

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. When the Digby wharf in Nova Scotia was divested, the Department of Transport gave a cheque for more than $3 million to the Maritime Harbour Society, a non-profit society. Within days it appears that $1 million was transferred out to a private corporation and then another $300,000 a few months later. Some $600,00 are scheduled to be transferred out next month.

Will the minister demand an accounting of this taxpayer money and stop all further transfers until he is assured that this money will benefit the users of the Digby wharf?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member for raising this with me before question period but I have not had a chance to get to the bottom of it.

Under the terms of the divestiture fund, there is a specific list of what the money should be spent on and there is provision for an annual audit. Hopefully we will have some clarity later on in the week, and I hope to get back to him either privately or in the House.

High Tech Industry

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to Mosel Vitellic Inc. and the government of Quebec, the federal government is dragging its feet in its decision to set up a semiconductor plant in Quebec.

My question is for the industry minister. Why is the government delaying an investment that is so important for the high tech industry in Quebec and in Canada?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of delaying a decision. In reality, there is the possibility of a very significant investment for Canada in the semiconductor manufacturing sector.

In addition, since a large amount of money is involved, a thorough investigation is necessary before we make an offer. We are continuing to negotiate with the company and with other interested parties so a decision may be made at the right time.

Points Of Order

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, following what took place this morning in the House, and with the hope of enlisting the co-operation of all the parties, I would like to reiterate this afternoon the request for unanimous consent that I made this morning but was asked to postpone until now so that consultations could take place.

Since opposition parties unanimously agreed to hold a debate starting now on Motion M-428, listed under the Private Members' Notices of Motions , and to have a vote at the end of that debate, as is normally the case, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed in that fashion, namely to have a debate followed by a vote on the issue of organized crime. This is a crucial and extremely important issue in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government would be prepared to adopt a different version of the motion, which I have here with me. We are not prepared to pass the motion as it was read earlier today. However, I do have an alternative motion, which I could propose, once the House has dealt with the one presently before us.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the leader of the government would agree to have a debate on the issue of organized crime, provided members are not actually required to vote? Is he basically refusing to give unanimous consent?

[The Speaker]

This is somewhat unusual. Normally, we ask if the hon. member has leave to move the motion, then it is moved. However, it seems to me that if we are to carry on like this, we could hear what he has to say. Perhaps the government House leader could simply read what he has to propose, and I will then give my ruling.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will read the motion the government is prepared to accept. The member opposite is free to put it in his name, because the initiative was his. I would be in full agreement with that. A motion acceptable to the government would read as follows:

That at 6:30 p.m. this evening, or at the end of consideration of Bill C-38 now before the House, the House will not proceed to adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38, but will continue to sit for the purpose of considering Motion No. M-428;

This motion was moved by the hon. member for Roberval, the Bloc Quebecois House leader. The motion continues as follows:

That, during the said debate, no member may speak for more than 20 minutes, followed by a 10-minute question-and-comment period, provided that the Standing Orders respecting the division of speaking times shall apply; and

That, during the said debate, the Chair shall receive no call for quorum, dilatory motion or request for unanimous consent, and that when no member rises to speak, the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day.

[The Speaker]

Agreements are being worked out on the floor of the House of Commons. I will hear from the member for Roberval for a few seconds.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know you like it when we get along well here in the House. I know that you will not prevent me from getting along well with my hon. colleague.

As I understand it, the government is refusing to give its consent for a vote. It is agreeing to a debate this evening, but does not want a vote. Is that what I am to understand?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

So let it refuse. We asked—

[The Speaker]

Order, please. Members can see what happens when we take that approach. I do not think I have a response to that and I will have to make a ruling.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not having the motion from the Bloc in front of me and trying to understand what the government is proposing, I am still uncertain whether the government is talking about a vote on its proposal. Would the government mind clarifying that to the Speaker, please?

[The Speaker]

Let me deal with first things first. What we have on the floor is a motion for unanimous consent as put forward by the member for Roberval.

I am going to set that aside and we will immediately proceed with this motion.

Does the hon. member have permission to put the motion before the House?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on another matter but still relating to organized crime.

In order to be prudent, since this is of such importance to us, I sent you a letter earlier today indicating that, if unanimous consent were refused by the government, I would appeal to the Chair in order to request, in keeping with the standing orders, that we be allowed an emergency debate this evening on this matter.

[The Speaker]

I did indeed receive the hon. member's letter, but before that I had received another from the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. At the end of routine proceedings, I shall therefore hear both the hon. members, and when I have heard everyone who wishes to contribute, I shall bring down my ruling.

For the moment, since we have decided that the motion was set aside, we will now proceed to routine proceedings.