House of Commons Hansard #10 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC
Mr. Speaker, nothing has been resolved. The situation is still the same. When is the government going to abandon its short term approach and come up with a genuine policy on competition?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member's question correctly, he is saying that we should not have taken quick action. I do not agree. There were increases in the cost of heating oil and it was important for the government to come to the immediate assistance of these families. That is what it did.
Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, last April the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration travelled to Fuzhou province in China. She met with high ranking government officials. We have every reason to believe that the minister met with PLA General Fhang Wei who has since been indicted by the U.S. department of justice for people smuggling.
Will the minister or someone over there confirm that she did not brief General Wei about our national security measures?
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, that allegation has been thoroughly verified by Canadian officials. I can report to the House that it was wrong and has been proven to be unsubstantiated.
Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is the case at all. I have in my possession a memo from the Privy Council which clearly stated “In Fuzhou the minister met with senior local officials, possibly including senior Chinese security official, Mr. Fhang Wei”.
The RCMP has not investigated this matter. It notified me that it would not. This guy was later indicted by the U.S. for people smuggling. When the government's own security and intelligence secretariat acknowledges—
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to want to answer his own question, but perhaps the House would like the government to answer it.
He has made an accusation that an official has received information from a Canadian minister which was cabinet confidential or possibly even a state secret. I can tell him that his accusation is factually incorrect. It was verified, and it is wrong and unsubstantiated.
Beth Phinney Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Persistent organic pollutants are of significant concern for all Canadians but especially for Canada's northern aboriginal people as the long range atmospheric transport of these pollutants has led to contamination of traditional foods.
What is Canada doing to protect the environment and the health of Canadians from persistent organic pollutants?
Karen Redman LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, Canada played a pivotal role in the United Nations environment program convention on POPs, successfully completed last December in Johannesburg.
This agreement will reduce significantly or eliminate foreign sources of this pollutant that impact the health and environment of Canadians, particularly in our Arctic. As well, Canada invested $20 million in budget 2000 to help developing countries reduce or eliminate the release of POPs.
Canada has already banned or severely restricted production, use and release of these pollutants in our environment.
Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Drumheller institution in my riding is home to rapists, murderers and various other criminals convicted of serious violent offences.
Correctional officers in this prison are not permitted to carry handcuffs. I ask the solicitor general to provide the rationale on why federal prison guards are not allowed to carry handcuffs.
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, our staff is well trained and experienced, but an example of why they do not carry handcuffs is that when offenders or prisoners have had handcuffs on they have used them as a weapon to attack the guard.
Safety is always the number one issue for our employees in Correctional Service Canada.
Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, we should take them away from our police officers as well then.
Drumheller guards were bitten, head-butted and kicked while attempting to restrain two intoxicated prisoners in the prison corridors because another guard had to go to the main control office, locate a key, open a restraining locker and retrieve the handcuffs they needed.
Quite obviously the policy of Correction Service Canada is putting our federal prison guards at serious risk of injury. Why will the solicitor general not immediately revoke the directive that forbids correctional officers from carrying handcuffs before more guards are seriously harmed?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, it is simply why we have to be cautious in our correctional institutions. We have some violent people in these institutions. What we have to do is protect our staff. We do not let them carry weapons because it could cause a problem of security for the staff within our institution. It just makes sense.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
Mr. Speaker, on January 6, Haroun M'Barek was deported to Tunisia after having been denied the right of asylum in Canada, a right he had been claiming since 1994.
Upon his arrival in Tunisia, he was arrested, tortured and incarcerated, after being sentenced to 12 years in prison by a tribunal in his country.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In light of such a disturbing situation regarding the assessment of the risks involved when the Department of Citizenship and Immigration sends people back home, will the minister pledge to delegate an observer to look at how Mr. M'Barek appeal is processed?
Mark Assad LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we cannot comment publicly on the details of a case.
Obviously, refugee status claimants in Canada undergo a fair determination process. If the hon. member's allegations are true, the department will certainly look at the case.
Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice just reintroduced legislation on youth justice. Already some are saying that it will hinder how the provinces can deal with youth justice under their own jurisdiction.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice tell us if this is true, or does the legislation actually help the provinces do the job better?
John Maloney LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House and this member that Bill C-7, the criminal youth justice act, provides sufficient flexibility for the provinces to properly administer our youth justice system.
The legislation provides a fairer and more effective approach. Our objectives are to prevent youth crime. Our objectives are to ensure that there are meaningful consequences. Our objectives are to ensure that there are reintegration and rehabilitation.
This is a very balanced approach. It is an approach that will suit Canada very well and that will suit our young people very well.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that the ethics counsellor has told journalists today that he will propose guidelines respecting crown corporations.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the ethics counsellor has discussed those guidelines with the government? Will the Deputy Prime Minister further tell the House whether, once received, those guidelines will be tabled directly in the House so there can be a full discussion as to the appropriate guidelines to be attached to crown corporations?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm, as I already have to other questioners from the opposition, that the ethics counsellor met with the Prime Minister on this matter. The ethics counsellor has given some proposals. The Prime Minister will be studying them and will reply further on them in due course.
When the leader of the Conservatives was on his feet earlier in question period he did not explain why he was down on his knees before the Alliance House leader. I did not know things had fallen to such a low state that he had to plead for survival on the floor of the House on his knees before the Alliance House leader. Perhaps he can explain—
Ethics CounsellorOral Question Period
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
David Anderson Canadian Alliance Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, the government's response to the agricultural crisis continues to be disastrous. The government promised $1.7 billion to support farmers. To date only 52% of that money has been delivered and some of it is now being clawed back from producers.
Today the price of nitrogen fertilizer has hit an all time high, more than doubling in the last two years. Farmers need help immediately.
Will the agriculture minister finally get the message and deliver the money promised to farmers before seeding?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member and everyone that the $1.6 billion that was promised to farmers through the programs that we have to support them as a result of the 1998-99 business year, will all be paid out.
Over 2,000 applications are being dealt with every week. The money will be paid out. As I said before in the House today, and as the government and I continue to say, we have been there for farmers and we are not done yet. We know they need more support.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege, relating to an incident that has just occurred during Oral Question Period.
It seems to me that this was something serious. As an opposition MP, with a duty to monitor the actions of this government, I questioned it on a number of investigations in which it is involved.
In his response, the leader of the government raised doubts, in my opinion, as to my integrity and professionalism, and threatened me with legal proceedings as an individual.
I would like to ask for some direction from the Chair. As an opposition MP, am I forced to keep in mind that, when we rise to demand an accounting from the government and if the matter happens to be a sensitive one involving investigations, we will be gagged, denied our right to speak and met with a barefaced threat of legal proceedings? The government House leader invited me to repeat my words outside the House.
In my opinion it is the role of the opposition to raise questions. Perhaps those questions may not please the government, but since we are a responsible opposition, because in our souls and our consciences we consider it our duty to ensure that the government is answerable for its actions when there is an investigation, I consider this totally inappropriate and unacceptable and I feel that my privileges as a parliamentarian have been breached.
On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to inform you that we are going to ask questions concerning the investigations involving the government.
My expectation is that, out of a sense of responsibility and respect of the duties of parliamentarians, the government House leader will rise in his place and apologize to me, for I have been injured in my responsibilities, in my duties and in the way I represent the people of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in this House.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, I also want to address the question of privilege raised by the hon. member and express my support for what he just said.
As a parliamentarian, I too was surprised and even shocked by the comments of the government House leader. Hon. members know that what the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was referring to has often been covered. On a number of occasions, the media have covered some 20 investigations that are being conducted in Quebec on a number of grants, particularly some granted by Human Resources Development Canada.
I fail to see how, today, a member who raises this issue in the House can be the object of a barely veiled threat on the part of the government House leader, who dared him to repeat the same comments outside the House, thus implying that the federal government would go so far as to sue the member for something said here and repeated outside the House. This is an issue that is widely known, an issue that has been reported by the media and that has been the subject of statements outside this House. I also find it quite unacceptable to see the government starting to resort to the very dangerous habit of daring opposition members to repeat outside the House what they say here, so that the government can sue them.
I respectfully submit to the Chair that our privileges as parliamentarians have been, if not violated, at least seriously threatened by what the government House leader just did.
Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that all members have the same privileges and are entitled to express their views as they see fit in the House.
What the government House leader did was to point out that a premise in the question was fundamentally inaccurate, and this is something the Canadian public needs to know, that is that the government is not under investigation. The fact that certain grants are under investigation does not mean the government is under investigation.
All the government House leader did was say that if the members opposite have any proof that the government is under investigation, which is not now the case, they should step outside the House and say so publicly to all Canadians. This is an entirely legitimate attitude. The Government of Canada is not under investigation.