Debates of Sept. 27th, 2000

Health

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we are. The recently concluded agreement with the provinces includes a billion dollars in federal money, available now, to allow the provinces to put dialysis machines, CT scanners and MRIs in place wherever they are needed in Canada.

Let me say to the hon. member that the government believes the best way to deal with the threat of privatization is to make our public health care system as strong and as accessible as it can possibly be. We have taken a giant step toward that objective.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a happy ending to this story, with no thanks to the health minister.

Once it became known that this issue would be raised on the floor of the House, there was suddenly room in a public Ottawa hospital for this individual. Unfortunately it took political intervention in order to deliver good quality health care to this Canadian.

Since the minister is not defending the principles of universality and portability in the Canada Health Act, just what is he defending?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we saw just today reference to the fact that Premier Harris intends to do everything he can to assist the Alliance electorally.

Perhaps the hon. member will take up with the premier of Ontario and the Ontario officials the need to provide in hospitals with this new federal funding the kind of responsive accessible care that Canadians need.

For our part the Government of Canada will continue to ensure the system is properly funded so provinces are in a position to provide the care that Canadians need.

National Highways

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the people have spoken and the message coming in loud and clear is that the funding for highways in the last budget amounts to squat.

The coalition to renew Canada's infrastructure calls it a disappointment. The Canadian Automobile Association has said that the Liberal government shortchanged our highway system. Investing in highways would save lives, help the economy and save our health care system billions of dollars in preventable injuries.

Will the government admit that it has failed to invest enough in our crumbling highways? Will it tell us how much money it will be bring to the table at next week's meetings of federal and provincial highway ministers?

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I recall the member being here when the budget was read this past February. We announced that a major investment of $600 million would be allocated for highway purposes in the country. Those negotiations are ongoing as we speak.

If the hon. member has any real concern she should speak to the premier of her province to make sure that those provincial priorities are brought to the attention of the federal government.

Taxation

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.

The Liberal government has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in gas taxes from British Columbia drivers but has not put one cent back into public transit. Now TransLink in the lower mainland wants to hit B.C. drivers with a $75 levy for every car they own.

When will the government finally listen to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to environmentalists and to the people of British Columbia and use federal gas tax revenues to make a major investment in public transit? It is good for clean air, it is good for taxpayers, and it is good for commuters. When will the government put it into transit?

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I gave the answer and the member should have heard it. The federal government has made a major commitment to the provinces and territories. The investment of $600 million is not peanuts.

I think they should be putting pressure on their provincial counterparts to make sure that those provincial priorities are brought forward to the table.

Employment Insurance

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we have received notice that a bill to amend the existing Employment Insurance Act will be introduced.

Why—this is my question as well as that of many other Canadians—did the government take so long to become aware of the difficulties it had created with the 1996 reform, for employers as well as employees, Canadian workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed there is as part of the 1996 amendments a good requirement for the government, through monitoring and assessment, to consider the amendments and make sure they are doing what they are supposed to do.

There are already examples of where we have made changes, not the least of which is expanding parental benefits and looking at small weeks. This is part of an ongoing process.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with a reminder to the Prime Minister that seasonal workers are not for sale.

He said he wanted to have the bill fast tracked, that he was going to amend the EI program. However, families have been suffering for four years.

I have one question for the Prime Minister. Is he making fun of the intelligence of seasonal workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have been listening to seasonal workers. We have been looking at the amendments, seeing how they play out, and making sure they do what we anticipated them to do.

If the hon. member will be patient, she will see in a package of amendments some response to this review.

International Co-Operation

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago we all heard the announcement by the Minister for International Co-operation outlining the four new social development priorities on which CIDA's budget will be focused: health, nutrition, basic education, HIV/AIDS and children.

Will the minister tell us what she is planning to do for children?

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, the new social development priorities have resulted in CIDA's first ever budget for child protection, with $122 million earmarked over the next five years for this priority.

We have even created a children's secretariat within CIDA.

In addition, by appointing General Roméo Dallaire special adviser for the protection of war affected children, the minister is assured of obtaining the best possible advice.

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, fewer than one million firearms owners have been licensed to date. There are likely two to four million left. The current backlogs at the firearms centre processing site are unmanageable. It will take years to complete.

What will the minister do to prevent gun owners from becoming instant made in Ottawa criminals on January 1? Her advertising blitz on television is extremely misleading. Buying ammunition is the least of their worries on January 1. How will the Prime Minister deal with the biggest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has it all wrong.

Canadians are complying by the tens of thousands with our new firearms licensing and registry program. Let me reassure the hon. member that well over one million law-abiding firearms owners have been licensed in the past number of months. We are receiving tens of thousands of licences on a weekly basis. We are processing tens of thousands of licences.

Canadians want to comply with this law. It is too bad the Canadian Alliance does not want to comply with it.

Human Resources Development

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last June during the summer recess when the minister tabled the invoices about Placeteco she said “Here. This matter is now closed”.

But we just learned today that there is a police investigation into this issue. It is once again in the Prime Minister's riding and it involves people who are very close to him.

Could the minister tell us at what time this issue became the subject of a police investigation?

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

Mr. Speaker, questions about investigations should go to the appropriate authorities. All I can do is confirm what I know the hon. member knows. From reading media reports, the indications are that this file is under investigation and as such it is inappropriate for me to comment.

Veterans Affairs

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Merchant mariners deserve full and prompt payment. Almost eight months after announcing the package not even two-thirds of the claims have been processed. Those who qualify have only received partial payments.

Will the minister clearly make two commitments right now: first, that all qualified merchant mariners receive their full second payment and not just a portion of the funds to which they are eligible and second, that all payments will be made this calendar year, given that every month more merchant mariners die of old age?

[George Baker, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, the deadline for applications was six weeks ago. There were 14,000 applications received. We have two shifts working 15 hours a day to process these applications. Sixty per cent have been processed. The hon. member should be standing and praising the government for the $50 million approved for this initiative.

National Defence

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed replacement program for the Sea King helicopters disqualifies the Sikorsky S-92 and the EH Cormorant. This replacement should be about saving lives, not about saving face.

Will the Prime Minister please do what is right and modify the Sea King replacement contract to allow a full and fair tendering process that gives all companies a fair chance to bid and be considered?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We are going through a consultation period right now so that any of the proposed suppliers of helicopters can tell us if they think there is anything wrong with the process.

We are not into buying developmental or experimental aircraft. If the S-92 happens to be certified at the time we are ready to purchase aircraft, that is fine. It will qualify. We clearly have said for a long period of time that we will buy off the shelf helicopters because we believe that will give the best deal to the taxpayers. It would take an awful lot more money to do what their party would have put us through.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise what I believe to be a blatant breach of my parliamentary privileges. Is it not contrary to the rules for the government to give to the media copies of a bill before that bill has been introduced in the House of Commons?

I believe that my rights as a member of parliament have been violated by the Minister of Human Resources Development and the member for Brant, since she is responsible for her department's actions. The minister should be blamed for her contempt of the rules of parliament in that regard.

Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled a motion with the journals branch and gave a 48 hour notice, pursuant to Standing Order 54(1), to the effect that she would be introducing a bill entitled an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

As members know, a bill is deemed secret and cannot be made public before having been given first reading in the House of Commons. However, within hours, and in some cases barely a few minutes after the motion was presented, the media received copies of the bill from an official or unofficial government representative.

Mr. Speaker, I have copies of over a dozen news articles with me that appeared across the country today and that I am prepared to table in the House. In fact, yesterday afternoon one reporter read on live television the details of what will be contained in this legislation.

These media reports are not just that the government intends to introduce this legislation. Rather, they contain very specific details about what will be in it, such as, to quote an article in today's Ottawa Citizen , the details that the legislation will:

Raise from $39,000 to $48,000 the income level at which benefits are clawed back from repeat EI users.

Eliminate entirely the intensity rule, under which a frequent user's benefits dropped by one percentage point for every 20 weeks of benefits claimed, from a maximum of 55 per cent of insurable earnings to a minimum of 50 per cent.

This is not a unique problem in this or previous parliaments. In fact, several times in this parliament you have heard cases of privilege involving the leaking of information not yet tabled in the House to the media. It happens with committee reports, with the budget and with legislation.

I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of your ruling of March 28, 2000, in which you found a prima facie case of privilege in the matter raised by the hon. member for London North Centre concerning the premature disclosure of a committee report to the media by the hon. member for Lakeland.

Occasionally, draft copies of legislation are circulated among party critics as a courtesy in advance of tabling in the House of Commons. As NDP critic for employment insurance, I attempted to obtain a draft copy of the legislation, but it was denied to me by the government House leader on the basis that it was secret until tabled in the House of Commons. The minister herself also denied me a copy of that same legislation.

This bill is very important for my constituents. I have been working hard on this issue since I was elected to this place. I do not need to remind the House that my private member's Motion M-222, asking that the government take immediate action to restore employment insurance benefits to seasonal workers, was unanimously approved by the House on May 9.

In conclusion, I would like to quote from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, chapter 2(24):

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.

This practice of leaking information to the media before it is made available to members should not be tolerated. This House cannot function and members cannot discharge their duties if persons outside this place are accorded privileges not enjoyed by all members of this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say to the hon. member that I totally agree with him that it is inappropriate for this information to find itself in the newspaper. That is the first proposition.

It is true that he approached me personally yesterday and asked me to get an advance copy of the bill, to which I responded that a bill of course is cabinet secret until introduced in the House and therefore it would be a breach of the cabinet secrecy to offer him a copy of the bill unless it had been so decided by a decision of cabinet.

Later yesterday afternoon the hon. member in question came back to me again and made the allegation that the bill was now in the possession of the media or that at least the contents of the bill were known to the media.

It is quite obvious that he was correct at least in terms of the content of the bill, because the bill was in the media before I, as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, had a copy myself. I am not amused by this any more than the hon. member is.

I am stating the obvious here. This is not something that I participated in and hopefully no one else in the House participated in this. I am quite confident that no one who sits in the House participated in this.

Be that as it may, the material, I must admit, found itself in the hands of the media. It is almost 24 hours before the bill is to be introduced and some elements of the contents have been alleged to be in the media. Tomorrow of course we will be able to compare the accuracy of the information in question. Certainly one does not have to be a genius to understand that there is a significant portion of it that is accurate.

First of all, in regard to the notice I signed, it is not respective ministers who sign all the notices of motion, it is I as government House leader. The notice I tabled yesterday of course describes a little of what the bill does, at least in its title form. I had of course also given notice to the opposition House leaders of the fact that there was to be such a bill. I actually gave notice at approximately 3.15 yesterday afternoon, and the table would know this, of the introduction of this bill, which is to take place no earlier than tomorrow. It could take place later but it will not. It is still our intention to introduce it tomorrow.

In summation, I want to indicate to the House that I do not believe there was any deliberate attempt on the part of any member of the House for this information to find itself in the media, however regrettable that may be.

On the issue of whether or not this constitutes a question of privilege based on the principle of a committee report, I do not think it does. The issue of a committee report is a report of a committee of the House being available to someone other than a member of the House before the House has knowledge of it. That is the principle behind it. I am sure all hon. members are quite familiar with it. This is not an issue of a report from the House. The government could issue a draft bill when the House is not even sitting; that is perfectly legal.

However, I made a commitment yesterday that this issue was cabinet confidential, which it was, and I am personally insulted at the fact that this document was made public before it was made available to the House, particularly when I personally refused to give it to a member of the House prior to its introduction. It is my duty to refuse prior to a bill's introduction in any case.

I feel just as much aggrieved as the hon. member. I know the member has a very particular interest in the subject and has worked very hard on this issue. I appreciate that. We are all in agreement when something like this happens. The fact that I may feel personally offended and the hon. member, having an interest in the issue, might be similarly offended, if not more, is of course of interest to all of us, but it is not the same in that it does not meet the threshold of the parallel of a committee report and I do not believe it is a case of privilege.

That said, I will do everything I can as a minister to ensure that bills that are to be introduced in the House and are not scheduled to be announced elsewhere before they reach the House are not announced before the House sees them first.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the government House leader that he is aggrieved by what has apparently gone on here. There is a problem with being aggrieved, even agreeing with the member's statement that a document that should have been tabled first in the House found its way to the media instead. Once again members of the House are being treated as second class recipients of information instead of being the first to get the information.

The problem with just being aggrieved and even agreeing that it is a bad thing is that nothing is ever done. From the words I heard from the government House leader, nothing will be done. He might be offended. He might think it is a bad deal. He might wish it never happened, but because nothing is ever done, because neither the government House leader nor the Chair ever says “I have had it up to here with this systematic misuse and abuse of the House”, it will happen again.

I urge the Speaker to take this question very seriously. The trouble is we all cluck our tongues and say “Yes, we should know first in the House and then in the media”. However, because nothing happens, it is like a policeman standing on the sidelines with a sign saying “Please go slower”, and there goes another one speeding. We have to intervene. Failing to do that means just stay tuned because there will be more.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I am involved in the point of privilege of my colleague. Without a doubt, here we are in a matter that is very much in the news, coming to the conclusion that there has been a leak somehow.

The government House leader regrets that this has happened, but I do not feel that regrets are enough. If there is a true desire to remedy the situation, if we want to ensure that nothing similar occurs later on, there must be an investigation and it must be clearly determined whether the Minister of Human Resources Development or any other member of the government or of the House—although it cannot have been anyone from outside the government—was or was not responsible for a leak to the public. As a result, the journalists knew before we did, thus preventing intervention in the House at the appropriate time.